Posted on 05/14/2008 7:49:36 AM PDT by freespirited
A top official of the National Rifle Association said Republican John McCain has been a reliable ally of gun owners despite divisions with the powerful lobbying group on some issues.
"We've had our disagreements, everybody knows it," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday. "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on those. We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners." ...
The likely Republican presidential nominee has voted against a ban on assault-type weapons, but has broken with the NRA in favoring a requirement for background checks at gun shows. McCain also has voted to shield gun-makers and dealers from civil suits....
But his harshest words were directed at the Democratic candidates. LaPierre accused Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.
"They try to say one thing in the heartland of the country and they vote another way back in Washington," he said. "And I just think the public sees through it."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
The state legislature moved to pass a law to allow anyone in the state to use a handgun in such a situation. Obambi voted no.
“If the Stupid Party ever grows a brain”
I think you’re aiming W-A-A-A-A-Y too high for that group, although I agree totally with your point.
Does McCain/Feingold allow me to say this?
Serious question: Why is a background check a bad thing?
I'm a Texan, a gun owner, and love our new Castle Law, but I would like to see the argument, and to be enlightened, as to why background checks are bad?
It looks like our only chance are from these DINOs getting elected recently.
McCain and the pro-life plank
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/05/new-stanek-wn-1.html
You mean Hale DeMar? All charges dropped never spent a minute in prison Hale DeMar?
Yes, I think you're ok as long as it's more than 60 days before the election... ;-)
LOL.
===============
IVI-IPO 2004 US SENATE QUESTIONNAIRE
35. Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of
a. handguns?
While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable , I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns ; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level , including retaining the Brady Law.
b. a ssault weapons?
Yes.
c. ammunition for handguns and assault weapons?
I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns .
===============
Wilmette Man Charged After Shooting Burglar
Home invasion victim charged with firearm violation -- Wilmette, IL
State Rifle Association Applauds Filing of Legislation in Response to Wilmette Shooting
I dont know which case it was. I heard the pundits talking about it on FOX.
http://gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin430.htm
McCain ratings from the Gun Owners of America
* 2006 - F- (same as Hillary Clinton)
* 2004 - F- (same as Hillary Clinton)
* 2002 - C-
* 2000 - C-
2006 NRA rating: C+
Not that the NRA ratings mean much. They don’t publish the criteria, and it appears that failing to support any NRA-endorsed gun control “compromise” legislation is an automatic letter-grade penalty per infraction per year. GOA has a consistent and transparent ratings methodology, and McCain flunks that test.
So what is next? Allowing civil liability against silverware manufacturers if their knives are used to stab people?
This is absolutely insane. Why should there be liability if a product does what it is intended to do?
The Wilmette case didn't relate to castle law, the shooting was justified, rather a violation of the towns ban on handgun. The charges were dropped, likely to prevent a conviction and subsequent appeal.
The gun show thing is a straw man, background checks are done on most show sales. Rather legislation would apply background checks to all private transactions, the few at shows included of course. Presumably if you gave your son a firearm, you'd both be obligated to go through the check process. It's one more burden and expense for gunowners.
Background checks are already required when you buy a gun from a dealer. Almost all Democrats, and some Republicans, also want a background check when you sell a gun privately. This includes whether at a gun show or the parking lot at Wal-Mart. The "gun show loophole" just makes a better soundbite.
The problem comes when the anti-gun RATS define what a “gun show” is.
To them it is a way to ban all private sales of guns so they can regulate licensed dealers out of business.
I think they wanted to define a gun show as ...anytime two or more people view a gun that is for sale.
That ends private gun sales because if you show one of your shotguns to a buddy that might want to buy it, it is a gun show and there fore you would have to run a background check on him.
Because you're not a licensed dealer, you have no access to the background check data-bank. You can never sell a private gun that you own.
See how simple it is to ban guns?
Sure, why not. I believe Illinois has a ban on carrying knives with blades over 4 inches, in Chicago palm width. Most table knives are illegal!
Thank you both for your answers. It was the private sale issue that I wasn’t considering. Now it makes sense to be opposed to that.
Actually I think most legislation address’ private sales, period. They simply peddle it as “gun shows”. Wouldn’t end private sales, for example you’d simply have to go to the time and expense of running a “sale” through a dealer when transfering a firearm to a family member. A dealer in the proper state if a handgun.
Because it's not something a private seller can do. The alleged "gun show loophole" is just folks like you selling what they've got ... do YOU want to be legally obligated to perform a NICS check (you have any idea how to do one?) just because you're selling an old bolt-action .22LR to someone whom you have no reason to suspect?
I sold a Glock 19 to a buddy. Should I _REALLY_ have to run a friggin' background check on someone I know?
That would easily add some 10% to the price, as dealer transfers usually run somewhere around $30 - and that just to sell a personally-owned item to a family member? WTF?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.