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?
True, but once they can end private sales ( if you need a dealer it’s nolonger private) They can work on regulations to put the dealers out of business.
At least, that's the intent. Perhaps more in the case of handguns across state lines. I'd be curious if any statistics are kept on crimes committed by firearms acquired in private sales, I suspect they're nil. Illegal dealers selling out of their trunks not being private of course, they're breaking the law now.
A gun owner and staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment, I'd like to know the same thing here in Virginia when it comes to auctions and gun show loopholes. Why don't auctions/gun shows have to abide by the same laws with instant check as gun stores do?
Absolutely not! But, what about selling it to someone you do not know...selling it to a felon, an illegal alien for instance?
Dealers at gun shows, the majority, do. And a "private" citizen showing up at multiple shows isn't a "private citizen", he's a dealer, and as I understand it violating the law if he's not running a check. Without any further legislation.
Thanks! The private sale issue was the part I was missing.
I was hearing some talking heads say that many of the RATs who beat "Republicans" ran to the right of the GOP candidate on guns and abortion.
So, nobody can blame losses by the GOP because the candidate was some "right wing extremist".
Thanks! It was the private sale part that I was missing.
Regulations and/or lawsuits.
A small time gunsmith or other minor dealer could be classified as a business for property tax purposes raising their taxes 3x or more.
Don't issue any permits for new gun shops and raise the fees for existing ones 100x.
Bottom line is the RATS see the gun show bill as a first step to banning all guns.
So how IN LAW do you differentiate between selling to friends vs. strangers?
Should the law be written along “guilty until proven innocent” lines?
Those objectionable would-be buyers are, in fact, very rare ... and can get what they want one way or another. Do we really want to hassle/penalize nearly everyone just to raise a minor hindrance to a few criminals? The price isn’t worth the cost.
Anti-gun forces have been working to reduce the number of licensed gun dealers in the US. They also want to require that all gun sales go through a licensed dealer. No tin foil hat required to see what their ultimate goal is.
BTW, CA has such a law and criminals here have zero problem getting all the guns they want.
I want to keep firearms out of the hands of felons, illegal aliens period! I see no reason to make it easy for them with gun shows and auctions not requiring a FFL for ALL vendors. I have no problem with private sales to neighbors, kin folk, etc.
Exactly! But there are a lot of "dealers" who masquerade as "private citizens" at shows. Additionally, about three or four years ago I attended an estate auction with a buddy. He purchased a .45 colt 1911, a S&W .357, and a Remington Model 70 at the event. Nothing was required except his personal checkbook for the firearms. I know that he was okay, but what about the next guy off the street?
Think about it this way: Should a car dealership be required to check the driving record of someone buying a car? It's wrong to imply that the seller should somehow be responsible for the actions of the buyer (too close to Bloomers view). How about the fact that a felon would be breaking the law by having a firearm and an illegal shouldn't be here anyway? At some point, people should be responsible for their own actions.
It's my understanding they're breaking the law. In that case the issue is enforcement, not another law. I'm not a frequent show attendee, but I'm told that most shows are pretty strict on dealers due to potential liability to the sponsors, but that might be a regional thing. An estate auction, if it's conducted by a commercial company, in my mind they should be held to the same standard as dealers. If it's an individual, like a house sale, you're right, they'd get a pass. I guess the real question is whether true private sales are a risk, my guess they're not or we'd be seeing statistics cited. Not the typical straw man of gun shows or "private" sales to gang bangers from the trunk of a car.
Serious question: Why is a background check a bad thing? ***
Serious answer ....
First of all there is no "loophole". All guns purchased from a Dealer at a Gun Show already go through the background check system.That's why it's a bad thing.What they are attempting to do with this fancy language 'Gun Show Loophole Law ' is ban the sale, or transfer, of firearms between private parties - period.
This means me buying my next door neighbor's .357 or me giving a family member, say my Son In Law, or MY WIFE, one of my guns (or all upon my death).
They want these 'checks' so there's a record of every gun transfered. And they'll push to make the check results kept permanently. It's defacto gun registration. And every where there has been gun registration the next step has been confiscation.
No, but try taking a car dealer's demo for a ride without showing your driver's license. So, essentially the dealership is checking your record because, if you had a bad one, you wouldn't have a license would you?
Do you understand what it takes to get an FFL?
How far are you really willing to go to "keep firearms out of the hands of felons, illegal aliens"? Do you understand that they CAN get them, with little difficulty, outside legal controls? Do you understand how MUCH hassle you intend to impose on how MANY upstanding citizens?
Before you say "I want X, period!", best to get a reality check on the cost of that period. In this case, you're talking about a very expensive system with great infringements on upstanding citizens, only to get a marginal improvement in an otherwise unstoppable situation.
(* - that's what ultimately backs law: go far enough in not cooperating with the law, and you face getting killed.)
(** - that's required for an FFL: a brick-and-mortar retail storefront with posted business hours.)
Thanks for the answer. Now I understand.
Upside down world right now.
I think all of us do. But why put the onus on the seller? It's the "illegal" and/or "felon" that are breaking the law when buying a gun.
And I think very, very few of us would sell to a guy that:
1.Can't speak English
2.Looks like a 'banger
You are assuming, incorrectly, that everyone who buys a car goes for a test drive first. Bottom line....there's no reason for the seller to be responsible for the buyer...is there???
And yes....you can have a bad driving record and still have a license.
No one has noted that in general this should be a state rather than a federal issue. The only federal role should revolve around protecting rights.
Actually sellers are responsible for their actions. If someone knowingly sells a firearm to a felon, they'll be held civilly liable, and in many (most?) state have violated the law themselves. In Illinois, which has some of the most restrictive laws, a private seller is essentially held to the same standards as a dealer, except for the check. The seller and buyer must have a FOID and a record including the serial number must be created and retained. There's no need for additional laws, particularly at the federal level.
We cannot allow fundamental rights to be regulated such that we go from being governed to being ruled. The best government is the one that has a healthy fear of its subjects. The worst government is the one that subjects are fearful of, and are helpless to do anything about.
Sorry if this seams paranoid, but the only way to achieve tyranny is by incremental (reasonable) regulation of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" that is so important to restraining an ever increasingly unrestrained government.
I have been quite secure under Bush, but I am very concerned about where we could go in an Obama administration. He is the reason rights must be deemed fundamental. That way they can't be disregarded when the public elects a nut to the WH.
No, I don't think he will win. But the very possibility of it is enough to make me resist government regulation in this area.
The question should not be "why we are against background checks?", but what good will it do to implement them? Also, what harm can come from regulating such an important right? Why limit the right when the benefits are negligible to nonexistent? All big picture stuff. Freedom and the Republic as we know it is just too important to take a chance with. I would rather deal with the occasional nuts that invariably come out in society than deal with being treated like a nut for wanting to have the means to protect my family from such a nut.
I'm not sure if you are looking for a comment back or not. Are you stating how the law is handled or how you think it should be handled? Do you agree with background checks on individual (non-FFL) sales?
It's true that sellers are responsible for their actions, but should they be responsible for the actions of others? I would say absolutely not. And of course selling a firearm to a known felon should be a crime, but if they are not known to be a felon, the seller should be free and clear.
Fantastic articulation! +1!
Essentially that’s how it’s handled now, which is why additional legislation isn’t needed, particularly on a federal level. The vast majority of sales at shows are by dealers, thus undergo checks already. There is no “gun show loophole”. And to my knowledge there is no problem associated with legitimate private sales. And without further legislation sellers knowingly selling to someone barred from gun ownership is already liable if the gun is used in a crime. Most legislation in this area isn’t about remedying a problem, none exists, rather about putting another layer of regulation on gunowners. Regarding private sales, if they’re private, I don’t see any need for a check, and for the “dealer” masquerading under the private sale exemption, he’s already violating the law.
OK. We’re pointing in the same general direction.
Thanks for the compliment. A Judge this morning told me "based on your compelling argument I will find . . ." in my favor. Of course he was being sarcastic. He and everyone else in the courtroom (including me) snickered as he said it because I had no opponent present, and therefore did not spend much effort in blathering on and on in a motion for summary judgment. I kind of yawned through a very brief and unenergetic "argument", but hey, isn't winning enough?
I guess that is how I feel about McCain these days. I will vote for him because I can't complain about the other person if I don't.
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.