Skip to comments.Why Liberals Want Gun Shows Stopped
Posted on 03/15/2011 9:27:27 AM PDT by neverdem
A fundamental principle of a free people is the ability to transfer property to someone else without government intervention. In the case of firearms, it is often a tradition to pass on a gun from one generation to another.
Recently a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns co-chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, commissioned a poll to determine how the public felt about tightening background checks on people that bought guns. It will come as little surprise that a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns wants additional restrictive legislation on the already restrictive process and they even bought the research that indicates the public agrees.
The target of liberal legislators is the gun show. If you are a licensed gun dealer you hold a Federal Firearms License and are required by law to perform a background check before you can release the gun to the buyer. That makes good sense and often there is a waiting period. A waiting period makes good sense too unless you are someone being threatened or harassed and you happen to need a way to defend yourself. The attacker will be reassured that the government will deny you, the potential victim, an immediate opportunity to purchase a tool to defend yourself. When an attack is going to happen in seconds the police, if called, will respond in minutes to take the crime report.
Here is the controversial aspect of a gun show: the unlicensed seller. This is a person that wants to sell his personal property to another individual. It is the equivalent of you saying Mike, you want to sell that .22? And then me telling you Ill take 50-bucks for it. We have a deal and Im the unlicensed seller. But, I dont need a license to sell you my .22. That is the gun show loophole.
Closing the gun show loophole enables the government to curtail person to person sales. That is what is really behind the attack on gun shows. Every gun would have to be turned into a gun dealer so that it could be tracked by the Federal Government and then the transfer process would be monitored by the Federal Government. The right you have now to sell your neighbor your shotgun will be gone, forever.
What is even more disturbing is the loss of the right to pass on your gun to a family member. The tradition of passing on grandpas gun to his grandson will be legislated out of existence. Gramps will have to pass the gun to a federally authorized entity that will then register it and pass it on to the recipient. Often the gifting of the first firearm is to someone thirteen or fourteen years old. Because they can not legally own a gun at that age it would have to be transferred to someone who would then hold the gun until it could be then transferred to the final owner when legal age is reached. Thats a lot of red tape to give someone your squirrel rifle.
Anti-gun liberals know that more bureaucracy on law abiding citizens is the easiest form of gun control and hidden under the label of common sense gun measures. If the government can make criminals out of people that have never committed a criminal act with administrative measures then people will avoid buying, owning and transferring guns altogether. Then they accomplish what they set out to do; stop legal citizens from owning guns.
New York City has some of the toughest gun laws in the United States but they have not eliminated crimes committed with guns. Why? Because going after gang members is dangerous, expensive and more often than not the criminal ends up back on the street. Mayors Against Illegal Guns should take a closer look at those that are committing the crimes and focus on punishing the perpetrators rather than building a bureaucracy that is targeted at legal gun owners.
I remember when I was a teenager walking down the street with an Ithaca Model 37 pump 12 gauge in the rural Adirondack mountain town where I grew up. I had purchased the gun from a friend and there wasnt any paperwork, background check, state or federal government involved. A police car pulled up next to me and the officer asked Are you coming or going? I get off in a few minutes and if you want to go hunting together hop in and Ill give you a ride. It turns out I was walking home and after I told that to the officer, he just said Ok then, next time and drove off. To me, that officer exercised common sense gun control. An anti-gun liberal would have had me, the gun seller and probably the officer up on federal charges and locked us up for a long time. Its a pity that the left doesnt understand the relationship between gun ownership and crime but it will be a tragedy if we let the Bloomberg lead coalition erode the gun rights of a free people.
Leftists just want our lives stopped.
...not just guns, property, whatever—they want to control every facet of the spirit, minds, and bodies of others—but liberty for ME!
I'm sure all the freedoms that we still enjoy drive them crazy; can't wait to cut them all down.
It is always the urban muck politicians trying to control their urban muck subjects and inmates.
When I buy a second hand gun I get a hand written bill of sale.
Think the lib politicians are concerned with citizens being shot ?
They are worried about their own skins !
...used for the same reasons that the “Bolshevik” party was named so, bolshevik meaning, “the majority”, although they were actually the minority.
Also, the name of any bill put forth in Congress in recent years will give you a clue as to what the bill will NOT do or is NOT for or will NOT promote.
When are we going to get around to returning that favor?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Well, there you go. It is as obvious as the nose on your face, and it is all about interpretation. You are assuming an individual right when this is all about “the People” and the militia, both cover lots of people, and those lots of people are not being prohibited from carrying weapons. The police, the Army the National guard, the armed services in general, the FBI etc etc. See, fits like a glove. /sarc
I recall events like he describes where police and other folks had no problem with the rifle you had slung over your shoulder. We brought rifles to school because we hunted before the day began. This was mid-1970s, folks... not that long ago.
We had a rife team, and we all brought our rifles (those who had them - those who didn't used the school's remington 513T's) to school on practice and competition days. We had a rife range in the basement of the gym
I graduated HS in '74, and what was in my car on any given day in the HS parking lot, would be considered a large arsenal by todays bedwetting standards.
Plus, it's a liberty-oriented venue where liberty-minded people gather. Associating with your own kind keeps morale up, especially when people see that the MSM's been lying to them, and how many like them there are. (Too many, sometimes -- you can't wedge your way up to a table!) So, from a liberals point of view, nothing good can come of this, at least once O's brownshirts have cruised the parking lot and taken down all the tag numbers.
1978 Junior High School - I brought my rifle to school once per week for the gun club meeting. Nobody batted an eye.
To top it off, this was in Garden City, Long Island NEW YORK.
Now, forget about a gun club, if you even draw a picture of a gun in that school you'd likely be suspended.
Initially, it would be no problem. If Gramps just gives Junior the gun anyway, there would be no way for them to prove he did so after the effective date of the law. The problem will come down the road when potential recipients are born after the law. Pretty hard to claim you gave someone a gun before he was born. I wonder if there would be any rules about what Junior would have to do if he FOUND a rifle just laying around.
Of course not. They were exterminated by then, along with other peoples The Party had no plans for.
All those rights for the people to have arms gets in the way of state planning.
I know, perhaps private firearms could be transfered to the ATFE for smuggling into Mexico?
That would solve a couple of pesky little problems, and of course what Agency does not desire “plausible deniability”?
I think any registered weapons you now have should be sold or traded for the same model, caliber and quality. That way none of the weapons you will posses will be in their files under your name.
I have not bought a registered weapon in over twenty years, I insist on private sales. I don’t keep track of who I buy or sell to and I’ve never had the cops knock on my door asking any questions about previously owned weapons. I will not participate in this registration game.
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.