Posted on 10/16/2008 6:26:08 PM PDT by marktwain
FORT WORTH — Gun shows are practically a Texas tradition. But now the issue of weapons sold at those shows has become a high caliber controversy in a Tarrant County state senate race.
Since the early 1970s, the City of Fort Worth has leased facilities like the Will Rogers Memorial Center for gun shows. While serving on the city council in 2000, Wendy Davis proposed limiting who could sell guns at these shows.
That controversy is now following her into the state Senate race.
"She has a proven record of attempting to pass what we consider to be bad regulations," said James Dark, executive director of the Texas State Rifle Association.
Davis says she wanted only licensed gun dealers at shows on city property since federal law requires they must do background checks on buyers.
Shows that wouldn't agree to that stipulation would have been banned under the proposal. Private gun owners and hunters who aren't dealers wouldn't have been able to sell.
"I will always defend the right for honest citizens to own, purchase, sell guns," Davis said, "but I will also fight to assure that they are kept out of the hands of criminals."
Because of her city council stand, the TSRA is endorsing Davis' opponent, incumbent Republican Kim Brimer. Brimer said he supports the "purchase of guns at gun shows."
His campaign added that if Davis had her way, gun shows would have been banned.
The TSRA's Dark said more gun show regulation isn't needed. "Criminals get firearms from other criminals or they steal them from law-abiding citizens," he said.
Fort Worth police reported no problems at the gun shows, although then-police chief Ralph Mendoza expressed some concern that not all buyers were checked. "It's the ability to bypass any checks at all," he said at the time.
Mendoza, now retired, declined further comment.
In the end, the Fort Worth City Council tabled the proposed gun show restriction.
Davis — who says she owns a gun — claims she just doesn't want the wrong people to have one.
"I absolutely defend the Second Amendment right to gun ownership," Davis said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2096535/posts
Let me post that link to the study about gun shows again:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2096535/posts
“she doesn’t want the wrong people to have one (gun)”
Geez, sweetie. I’d love to be the only person in the world with a gun as well...
ya’ll don’t want that.
Sad to say, but the FFL is not your friend as a gun owner. He’s in business to make a profit, and I’ve not a thing wrong with that, BUT he is the person whom the state has deputized to stand between you and your inalienable right to self-defense. He is a willing accomplice to the ATF. He’s got all kinds of excuses, but the real reason he likes things the way they are, it that his government license keeps others out of the business of selling firearms. Economically, we’d call it a barrier to entry. I have another name for what the function of FFLs is. Kapo. Google it up if you don’t know the meaning.
“It’s always good to peel the onion so to find out what’s underneath the surface. The real intent of those who would pass legislation to limit sales at gun shows only to those who possess a FFL is to eliminate gun sales between private citizens such as neighbors, friends, relatives, etc. In the event this law is passed you can be sure that the next step will be to expand it so that all gun sales must be routed through a FFL owner.”
I think the long term strategy is pretty clear. Make guns harder to own and use, thereby reducing the number of people who legally own them until they are politically irrelevant.
Then make the left overs illegal as well.
You are absolutely correct on the intent to require all gun sales to be done through agents of the state. That becomes an indirect form of registration, and effective confiscation over time.
I know a couple FFL holders. They sure aren’t getting rich on 10% gun markups. The retail shops stay in business on accessory markups. The kitchen table guys don’t make much of anything and do it for fun.
You couldn’t pay me enough to take a job with the ATF and state attorney general’s office sniffing around all the time for a paperwork error to put me out of business or better yet in jail.
The bad guys aren’t the license holders. The bad guys are in Washington.
It takes both to make the system work.
If licensees stood up and said ‘no more’ to the ATF hoops that wouldn’t stop the system. It’d just stop you or I from being able to buy a gun.
FFLs don’t make the system work. We do by not voting the bastards out.
The FFL started as a mail in license for $1. The worst bumps up to restrict our rights came with the GCA in 1968 and the numerous administrative incursions and the Brady bill in 1993. They just keep whittling away at our rights, trying to reduce the number of active gun owners.
There are some “stocking FFL” dealers who actively work to reduce their competition by regulation, but it takes a fair amount of guts to keep an FFL in the face of the ATF.
If the number of FFLs keeps getting reduced, the number of new guns available to all will be reduced.
“Davis — who says she owns a gun — claims she just doesn’t want the wrong people to have one.”
Hint: We the People are the wrong people. Only elitists should have guns, silly boy.
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.