Posted on 02/27/2013 11:21:30 AM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
Now that they're facing Washington's first serious push for new gun violence prevention laws since the Columbine massacre, gun lobbyists are grasping at straws — as in "straw" purchases.
That's the slang for someone who legally buys a firearm from a licensed gun dealer, then sells it to someone whose criminal or mental health record prohibits them from making a legal purchase.
The National Rifle Association's official position favors prosecuting straw purchasers, but defends allowing sales at gun shows without background checks from private dealers.
In the 1990s, you may recall, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president, supported universal background checks for all gun purchasers. "No exceptions," he said.
Now the organization is against background checks, calling the current push in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre "a thinly veiled national gun registration scheme."
As if that were a bad thing. It is ridiculous in my view to require licenses for cars but not for guns. Yet, while all states require licenses for cars, the federal government prohibits itself, at the NRA's urging, from keeping a national registry of gun owners.
Short of that, most of the country, including many gun owners in recent surveys, favor background checks as a reasonable requirement for people who want to purchase firearms.
(Excerpt) Read more at my.chicagotribune.com ...
Is it only the NRA which stands to lose?
Is it not all Americans?
Admin Mod. - time for our friend to go bye-bye, me thinks (see recent articles posted from lefty sources).
Are gun rights safe?
For decades, every state operated its own facilities for mental health. Then, in 1962, JFK (the first one) decided to open the arms of the federal government and take over this duty.
It never happened.
Hey Chicago Tribune!
Did you get a Federal License, a personal background check, and a speech registration for that article?
When there is an hitoric example of a tyrant confiscating cars as a necessary step in his march to totalitarianism, we can have a meaningful discussion.
Until then, the argument is fatuous.
As if that were a bad thing. It is ridiculous in my view to require licenses for cars but not for guns.
Clarence. Clarence, Clarence.
The Second Amendment applies to our rights from GOD, not the DMV.
A human being has the right to defend and protect his life, a right granted by GOD, not any gummint.
Clarence, you are ridiculous, in my view.
And how does any thing this idiot wrote show that the NRA is losing?
Ah, good ol’ Clarence. The oxygen must be running out in that bubble-world he lives in.
I’m on your side. Just thought my fellow sharks might like to feed on a bit of chum. Bon appetite!
Amen Brother.
Chicago sucks rooster. That’s all I have to say.
Can I be held responsible for selling a used car to a felon or other 'prohibited person'?
There's no Federal registry of automobiles, you know. Its all done at the state level. Why isn't the Department of Transportation keeping lists of felons who own cars? Can a felon/ex-con legally cross state lines in a vehicle? How come you're allowing them a car to do just that?
Why are you allowing felonious migratory predators the means of transportation they need to commit violent crimes? Haven't you ever heard of women and children being abducted by felons in vehicles? How come you aren't against 'Rapist Vans' like you are against 'Assault Weapons'? Honestly now, who legitimately needs a trunk large enough to hold two dead gangsters or even a single bound and captive female sex slave in this day in age?
Why aren't you calling for legislation to make ex-cons and parolees have special license plates to identify them to law enforcement, so that they can be pulled over at will and searched? Oregon and Washington state, New Jersey and Illinois seem to want to do this to legal gun owners by allowing the police a warrantless search at the property of gun owners.
A motor vehicle is a necessary component of drive-by shootings, home burglaries, and home invasion robberies. Why would you allow anyone to just sell a car to some unknown individual without a background check on some lame promise that the buyer will register the car within 30 days? Why don't you go ask a police officer how many motorists they encounter without valid registration first.
Hell, California even has a policy where police officers can't tow cars from illegal aliens who haven't got valid car registration. Why doesn't that sentiment apply to guns? Why shouldn't gun owners justifiably regard gun registration with the same non-chalance?
The fact is that vehicle registration is a joke in almost every locale. Why would you expect gun registration to be any different?
The exact same argument the leftards made when pushing Obamacare. Yo, fools -- driving is a PRIVELEGE. Gun ownership is a RIGHT!
Right. The NRA is “losing.” This is so readily evidenced by the millions of gun and ammo purchases, along with new NRA memberships since the killings in Newtown, CT.
You’re right on it, Clarence...
Oh, wait...
Exactly ! Our RIGHT to keep and bear arms is recognized and codified in the Constitution. Driving a car is NOT.
empty headed liberal really knows just how the NRA is losing the argument.
If you ask the question this way, I'm sure that this is a true statement. What he's slyly leaving out is that most people don't reflect that the present "background check" needlessly leaves a paper trail of the buyer's name, address, date of birth and the weapon make, model and serial number.
But there's no reason it has to be that way: you could easily re-structure the system to check an individual against a "prohibited person" list -- eg felons, without the use of a 4473. If there's a need for "common sense" gun laws, let's start with getting rid of the backdoor registration we currently have in place.
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.
