Squawking In Memphis
A gun buy back in my fair state:
Officers say before you show up to the Pyramid Saturday, take the gun you plan to turn in, remove the ammunition, and do everything else to make sure that fire arm is not a hazard.
“The mitigating factor is you’re bringing this gun to turn it in, and the way to do that is put it in a paper sack, unload it make sure that you are going to have it in a safe manner,” said Sgt. Vince Higgins, spokesperson for the Memphis Police Department.
Higgins said guns turned in Saturday will cataloged and destroyed. He believes that fewer guns on the street will result in fewer shootings and fewer homicides.
“Many times these guns are the result of law abiding citizens’ homes being broken into, or their car being broken into, or theft or some sort,” Higgins said. “We want people that have these weapons that they don’t have any use for, that they feel are unsafe in their home, to bring them to us.”
Higgins said gun experts will be on hand at the Pyramid to help answer key questions about any guns you may bring.
“Part of this is to teach safety about handguns,” he said. “The other part is lets get them off of the street. That gun that’s turned in in our gun turn in campaign? It’s going to be one less gun to be stolen and used in another crime or, sold for crack, or some other drug.”
I wonder if they’re buying them or if it’s just a turn in? If they buy them, some enterprising upstart may be able to score a good deal. Any way, getting guns off the streets this way isn’t likely to help. Those inclined to turn them in likely aren’t the type to commit crimes anyway (well, unless they can get paid for them).
July 11th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Private party transfers are legal in TN, no? I’m sure there’s a reason why you don’t hear about gun buy-back programs very often in states where, “hey, you’re going to give that 1911A1/winchester/other-gun-I-want away/sell it for $50 bucks, I’ll give you $150 for it” is legal. I almost wish Fairfax county would do something similarly dumb so I could go to my very own gunshow. 🙂
July 11th, 2006 at 10:57 am
If my gun was stolen, I’d be screaming holy hell right about now. What frickin’ right do they have to destroy property that isn’t theirs? The guns shouldn’t be “cataloged and destroyed” rather, if there really are as many stolen guns as Higgins says, they should be identified and returned.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:58 am
And aught six, they have that program here in Fairfax. its called the Nation’s Gun Show. Happens every couple of months
July 11th, 2006 at 11:04 am
I object to the name “buyback.” How can you buy back what wasn’t yours in the first place?
July 11th, 2006 at 11:05 am
I concur but it’s just so ingrained in the vernacular, like the non-existent gun show loophole.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Aught-Six,
Private transfers are legal in the Volksrepublik of MA, so I would certainly HOPE that a free state like TN has them as well…
I’ve already transferred [counting on fingers] 5 guns privately this year – bought 3, sold 2… Two more and I’ve hit my limit… 😉
July 11th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Countertop–yup, just a few more weeks until the next one. Unfortunately, I doubt I’ll be getting any toys then… gotta hold off on the impulse buys (but, honestly, could you resist a VZ-24 in 7×57 for $100?) for a bit if I’m going to get that CMP Garand.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:28 am
OK, not that I want to see any gun destroyed for the purposes of providing a phot-op for some gun-grabbing idiot of a politician, but IF you MUST destroy a vintage 1911, or a Colt Navy revolver, could you please take the grips (and other parts not part of the action of the gun) off beforehand and sell them to a local gun owner.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Dang, I missed this one. Thanks for the heads up.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Uncle:
like the non-existent gun show loophole.
Yes, because for someone looking to bypass a background check, going to a gun show where there are certain to be lots of private parties selling is exactly the same thing as trying to track down an individual seller elsewhere. Nope, there’s no reason in the world why such a buyer would ever even conceive of going to a gun show for this purpose. Therefore, requiring background checks for all gun show buyers wouldn’t make things even the slightest bit more difficult for such buyers.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Err, who said that?
July 11th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
If I were going to be in Memphis this weekend, I would try to bring a couple grand in $20s and do some dealing.
I have always been tempted to attend one of these functions and offer more per gun than the law enforcement agency orchestrating the “buy-back”.
You could probably score a handful of great deals, although most of the guns would be junk.
All you would need to do is offer a little more than what the gendarmes are offering inside.
Memphis is a veritable war zone.
Most of my family lives there, and I have taken both of my parents, my sister, and my 2 nieces to the indoor range and given them extensive gun safety and shooting instructions.
I go there quite a bit, and my Glock 20 never leaves my side.
I really just need to pick up a “carry AR-15” for when I am there.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
I saw it on the news at lunch today. No mention of any money being offered.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Uncle:
You’ve frequently asserted that the reason you think there’s no “gun show loophole” is that private-party gun sales at gun shows are no different from any other private-party sales. Or, at least, that’s what I thought you were saying.
Now, maybe if you want to pick semantic nits, “loophole” might not be exactly the correct word to describe the problem, but that doesn’t mean the underlying problem doesn’t exist. And as I’ve pointed out before, this particular problem would be very easily solved, at very little cost or inconvenience. It seems to me like an easy win, and one that can make pro-gun interests seem more reasonable to the general public.
Instead, similar to anti-abortion-restriction activists, anti-gun-restriction activists seem to have a knee-jerk opposition to any sort of new legislation, even that which would not meaningfully infringe upon any rights. Unless, of course, such legislation is easing restrictions.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
And that is true. And that doesn’t make it a loophole. But your rationale, there’s ‘the guy up the street loophole’ and the ‘on consignment at the gun store loophole’ and the ‘my friend has this kick ass M1A that i can’t wait to buy from him loophole’.
Err, no. then don’t refer to it as closing a loophole. Call it what it is ‘regulating private transactions at gun shows’. The anti gunners created the term gunshow loophole and it is wrong.
And I’ve stated before why I oppose it.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
I’m not sure there is a hard and fast definition of “loophole.” If there is an “on consignment at the gun store loophole,” this is the first I’ve heard of it. Don’t licensed dealers have to conduct checks on all their sales? If not, why on earth not? It makes no sense at all for a dealer to conduct background checks on customers who purchase his own inventory but not on ones he holds on consignment for others. Unless you really think a rational legislator would favor that result – as opposed to many legislators being unable to change it because some want to regulate both transactions while others want to regulate neither – it’s a loophole.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
No.
Some weapons are owned by the dealers as individuals in some cases.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Tom: just for grits and shins, how would you write the law you’re proposing? For instance, how would you define a gun show?
And once private sales at gun shows were banned, how long do you think it would take to ban private sales via Gunbroker.com or gun message boards (which are a hell of a lot more efficient than gun shows)? Would those be banned as online gun shows?
July 11th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Uncle:
A “loophole,” as I see it, is a way to get around the intended effect of some law or regulation. As such, if the intent of requiring background checks for commercial gun sales is to make it harder (or, at least, less convenient) for those who are legally barred from owning guns from buying them, then the gun show “loophole” certainly seems to qualify, for the reasons I pointed out in my very first comment (after which you asked “who said that” and then in effect confirmed that you effectively said that).
The other loopholes you mention may indeed be loopholes, too, but the one I’m talking about (the one you insist doesn’t even exist) would be remarkably easy to fix.
Les:
Woah, woah, woah, back up the train! Who said anything about banning private sales at gun shows? Certainly not me.
Once someone starts providing a service wherein gun buyers are matched with gun sellers, that service is over and above a simple person-to-person transfer. And when such services are involved, I think background checks ought to be required. After all, you’re no longer dealing with a simple private property transfer, but a form of brokered sale. (Presumably, the private seller at the gun show rented a table, and the on-line guy paid to put his listing there.)
I’ve said before that I would even simplify matters by centralizing the background check function. The people running the gun show would be responsible for providing background checks, and all sales at gun shows, whether by licensed dealers or private individuals, would require them. Ditto for on-line transactions.
If, on the other hand, you simply sell your gun to your buddy, or are just listing an ad in your local newspaper’s classifieds, that’s clearly a true private-property transfer, and requiring background checks, even if warranted, would put an undue burden on the seller that’s nowhere near as easily resolved as in the case of gun shows and brokers.
That’s why I keep saying: easy win, very little inconvenience, and no infringement at all upon the law-abiding gun owner. Yet many gun enthusiasts recoil from this suggestion as if it were the moral equivalent of total confiscation. As I mentioned above, this seeming inability to think in anything other than knee-jerk absolutes is frustrating, and seems to be by far most prevalent in the gun and abortion debates.
P.S. What’s a “gun show” (or, more precisely, what would be covered)? As I mentioned above, any sort of brokering service where people pay fees for the opportunity to buy and/or sell firearms. The responsibility for providing background checks, as well as ensuring participating sellers are only selling to those with positive checks, would lie with the broker.
P.P.S. For what it’s worth, this issue isn’t important enough to me to “go to the mat” over. It just surprises me that it seems to be that important for some others. Seems to me there are much bigger fish when it comes to gun rights.
July 11th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
You don’t understand. If they require background checks for private sales at guns how, people will conduct private transactions in the parking lot.
Ban parking lot private transactions and they will meet next weekend at the gun range.
And so on. Slippery slope.
Don’t try to pretend that the idea here is that they want to stop crime. They just want to know where every single gun is in the entire country. Think I’m kidding? Language in some of the bills that were floated around during the Clinton error had language that prohibited private sales between individuals if they had ever met at a gun show, even if the transaction did not occur at the show.
Generally, I like to think of myself as someone who at least tries to be a law abiding citizen. For me to comply with this law, I’d have to get the names of every person I ever run across at the gun show and preserve those records. Then, when I made a private sale, I’d have to check my records and make sure I’ve never met this person. Otherwise instead, I’d have to have a NICS done on every transaction to be sure I stayed out of Club Fed.
I’d also probably have to pay for the privilege to do the “voluntary” check too.
You’re running under the assumption that the federal government, although not allowed to actually confiscate them, has the right to know who owns every single privately owned firearm.
Snap out of it.
July 11th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
“Who said anything about banning private sales at gun shows? Certainly not me.”
You’re right, I could have phrased that better. You’re not banning private sales, you’re requiring background checks for private sales.
FWIW, I don’t think the people wanting to close the “gun show loophole” are worried about brokerage at gunshows. They’re worried (ostensibly, anyway) about people walking around with guns and selling them to whomever asks about them. Your rules don’t address that.
As far as why people fight at the fringe – that’s where the battle lines are. If you give up distant ground you let your opponent advance and deploy his forces against your more vital positions. Like Churchill said after Dunkirk, “Wars are not won by evacuations.”
“I’ve said before that I would even simplify matters by centralizing the background check function. The people running the gun show would be responsible for providing background checks, and all sales at gun shows, whether by licensed dealers or private individuals, would require them.”
As I understand it the Federal Firearms License holder (gun dealer) is personally responsible for all gun transfers. I don’t think he could or would delegate that out to the person running the gun show (who would then be required to be an FFL).
July 12th, 2006 at 12:33 am
Mischief:
If they require background checks for private sales at guns how, people will conduct private transactions in the parking lot.
Why? Seriously, why would any honest gun owner do that? The only reason I could conceive of would be to specifically avoid the background check. But why would any law-abiding citizen looking to buy a gun want to do that? If it’s about fees, fine, waive them, or make them the responsibility of the brokering agency.
Your argument boils down to “because some people will take active measure to bypass regulations, we should just not have regulations.” Which is, to put it bluntly, asinine. People speed anyway, so screw it, repeal all speed limits! If people want to go 80 in a school zone, they’re going to do it anyway, right?
As for your excessive restrictions, I’d oppose those for many of the pragmatic reasons you list. But frankly, I’ve never been terribly impressed by “slippery slope” arguments. Gee, if we outlaw murder, pretty soon they’re going to outlaw all killing — even of animals! That’s essentially the logic you’re using.
And frankly, I don’t give a shit what “they” want. I care about what makes sense. Meanwhile, all you’re doing here is feeding the stereotype that gun enthusiasts aren’t willing to do anything at all to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.
And Christ, how do you get from me not thinking a small increase in the percentage of gun sales subjected to background checks is such a bad idea, to me supporting a national gun registry? Try to at least attack positions I’ve actually taken!
Les:
You’re not banning private sales, you’re requiring background checks for private sales.
More to the point, I’m requiring background checks for a limited subset of private sales. As I said, I wouldn’t require you to get a background check before buying a gun from your buddy. I would require it if you bought at a gun show or an on-line gun brokerage, because in my estimation, a gun show is a lot more like a gun store than it is like John Q. Public selling off his old carry piece in a vacuum.
Of course an illegal buyer could get together with an unscrupulous seller and game the system. That doesn’t mean we have to make things easy and convenient for them (why hunt for a private seller when there will be dozens at the gun show next month?). It really doesn’t seem like that big a deal to me.
As I understand it the Federal Firearms License holder (gun dealer) is personally responsible for all gun transfers. I don’t think he could or would delegate that out to the person running the gun show
Perhaps so. You know the laws better than I do. But you get the point. Modify the law so that background checks can be centralized, or so that licensed dealers do as they always do, but show operators now provide the checks for private sellers to whom they lease space. It’s not that big of an infringement.
I think the pros of this outweigh the cons. It wouldn’t noticeably infringe upon anyone’s RKBA, it would show that gun enthusiasts are willing to agree to some common-sense measures, and it would give the anti-gun movement one less saber to rattle — especially if such a measure passed with the full support of gun groups, rather than over their objections.
July 12th, 2006 at 4:39 am
Um, ever hear of civil disobedience? Except this isn’t even lawbreaking. Yes tgirsch, I will travel to another state so I may legally purchase full capacity magazines. I will include a magic number of otherwise identical made-in-the-USA parts in my firearms so I can have that evil meanie cleaning rod attachment. I will own black guns. I will make my own ammo.
It’s not about the fees. It’s about paying for the privilege to execute a right, and how that diminishes the right. What if only people who paid a fee got lawyers or the right to have a jury trial? What about paying a poll tax before voting?
But there’s something wrong about doing 80 in a school zone. There’s something noble about resisting a state run registry of firearms.
Think of it this way. We think of it not as a “gun show loophole” but as a “national firearms registry database loophole” for the federal government. There’s nothing in the constitution that lets the feds create such a database. Heck there are specific laws passed by congress preventing them from doing such.
Yet that hasn’t stopped BATFE from trying. Like pressuring small dealers into not renewing their licenses so that their records must be turned in to the feds. Like retaining “instant background check” information past the legally mandated period to “test” the system. What are they doing with that? Selling the data to Choicepoint or something?
Yea, technically it is considered by some as a logical fallacy. Your example, however, is silly. I can cite plenty of examples where bad things have come from firearms registry databases. There’s a bunch of barrels used as rebar in concrete over in England. There’s a bunch more that they dumped into the English Channel after the war. Gorbachev ordered Lithuanian citizens to turn in their target shooting and hunting guns within one week “for temporary safekeeping”, when Lithuania initially attempted to break away from Mother Russia. They had a list, they knew where all the legal ones were.
Another stepping stone examples include driver’s licenses and #SS numbers transmogrifying into the national ID cards that everyone of age must produce on demand. You can’t even get a fishing licence without showing a government issued ID card (However, you can still vote without an ID, at least in Maryland. Guess why.)
Never said that. Furthermore although my rights don’t ebb and flow in accordance to the crime rate, it’s interesting to note that Clinton’s December 1997 NIoJ study claims only 2% of criminally used guns came from private sales at gun shows. Is it too much to ask the feds to say, arrest and prosecute those people turned down by background checks because they are a felons before we resort to further restricting my rights?
Clearly it’s safer if the Secret Service can arbitrarily corral protesters into “free speech zones” that are well away from the press and President, how much of your right to freely assemble are you willing to give up to protect G.W. Bush?
Because a national gun registry is useless if there they haven’t yet stomped out all forms of private sales. You clearly support banning at least some private sales. When that does not do anything about the crime rate I’m afraid people like you will come back and support further ineffective restrictions on my rights.
Then again, maybe I’m taking “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.” totally out of context.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:11 am
Because in your hypothetical, they can’t do it inside? As for why generally, because the guy walking around will sell it cheaper than a dealer and the buyer will save $10 in checks. Also, some folks just simply don’t buy guns from dealers due to fear of registration. My dad, for example, a 21 year military vet and 20 years in law enforcement never once bought a gun of any kind from a dealer for that reason. And he’s not the paranoid type; just hates the notion of registering anything.
July 12th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Uncle:
Because in your hypothetical, they can’t do it inside?
In my hypothetical, they can do it inside. I’ve stipulated over and over again that the service would be provided by the organization running the gun show. I’d even require them to offer it.
I’ve also already stipulated that I’d remove any fees from the private buy or private seller.
SM:
Um, ever hear of civil disobedience?
Again, why? Unless, of course, your opposition is to background checks of any kind, in which case, we’re back to a complete unwillingness to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands. I can think of no faster way to drive gun rights backwards than to endorse a “guns for everyone with no restrictions” approach.
It’s about paying for the privilege to execute a right, and how that diminishes the right.
Again, that’s silly. Does the fact that the government doesn’t give you a gun and ammunition diminish your RKBA? It’s the sort of right that you have to pay to execute, unless you’re really, really lucky, because at a minimum you’re buying guns and ammo. Modest fees do not, in my estimation, constitute an “infringement.” Exorbitant fees (like NYC’s, for example), do.
Of course, since you’re obviously of the opinion that anyone who supports any form of gun control whatsoever must by extension support the agendas of the most extreme anti-gun organizations out there (a position you’ve repeatedly assigned to me, even though I’ve never taken it), there’s little point in continuing this discussion further.
You’ve accused me of wanting to ban private sales, and of wanting a national gun registry, when I’ve not only never taken these positions, I’ve openly rejected them. How is intellectually honest debate supposed to take place if you keep building up such straw men?
To be clear, my modest “support” for gun show/brokerage changes (which actually boils down to not opposing such changes, if properly implemented) wouldn’t “ban” any sales that aren’t already illegal. Not one. They would simply add a couple of minor additional safeguards to help prevent illegal sales. In particular, they would empower private sellers at gun shows and on-line brokerages to know whether or not their buyer is indeed legal — something they don’t have any way to know right now. Assuming, of course, that the seller even cares about that. Given your strong opposition to such a proposal, I’m led to believe that you, at least, don’t.
July 14th, 2006 at 12:43 am
Dude, the current background check is broken, unduly restrictive, and can be described as a sneaky computerized registry of who owns every firearm. That’s wrong. Read this firsthand account from LawDog (psss, he’s a police officer). Now tell me it works.
Now you’re telling me that you want to add further restrictions to us poor firearm enthusiasts. And you have utterly failed to show why we even need those extra restrictions. You have also ignored the evidence I have brought to the debate that shows that there’s really not a problem with private party sales.
So, since you still seem to have that hard-on for the stealth gun registration scheme you call a “background check”, is it really that far of a stretch to think you’re one of those people who will take a half a loaf, a slice, or even a crumb and then come back, yet again, for more “reasonable” gun control? Or do you really have a “line in the sand”, somewhere? If you do, would you please articulate it?
Of course I don’t believe that the Second Amendment is 100% always an absolute, but it is worded such that it’s quite easy for even slight restrictions to be an infringement. The first batch of congress-critters wrote this: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They could have written “unreasonably infringe”, but they did not.
It isn’t just the style of writing back then, they knew how to allow reasonable infringements. The Fourth Amendment only bans “unreasonable” searches without a warrant. Reasonable searches without a warrant are OK.
To be clear, I’m not opposed to background checks. I just very reasonably expect that they need to be designed carefully. They absolutely can not allow the government to get a list of every firearm owned. They can not ever be excessively expensive or slow. The need to have the check needs to be justified, and I need to see a good value for my crime fighting tax dollars. Finally, if the system is down for any reason, the requirement for passing the background check needs to be waived until the system is back up. Problems resulting from a government failure to maintain their own database should not restrict lawful commerse.
And if those dang Brady background checks by licensed dealers really did stop half a million or so felons from buying firearms, there ought to be half a million felons in jail for breaking that law. In reality, only a handful have ever been charged. Why exactly is that? Isn’t this Brady crap a waste of tax funds?
July 14th, 2006 at 2:43 am
Tgirsch,
July 14th, 2006 at 9:04 am
SM:
I don’t think the word “infringe” means what you think it means. If it meant what the word means in common parlance today, the Second Amendment would be ungrammatical, as you don’t infringe rights; you infringe on them. Under the now-archaic meaning (which was not archaic in 1791), to “infringe” a right means to destroy it. So no, modest fees for gun purchases may be bad policy (and I would argue that they are), but from a Second Amendment perspective they are a minor nuisance, and therefore not an infringement.
July 14th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
SM:
First, what X said.
Second, now we’re finally getting somewhere: It’s not the background check requirement at gun shows you object to. It’s the background check requirement itself (at least in its current form). Which means that you’re basically arguing a completely different point than I have been. As to the checks in the larger sense, I’m completely open to fixing whatever problems may exist with them. What I’m not open to is simply throwing up our hands and saying “there’s no way to prevent known felons from buying guns, so we shouldn’t even try.”
Third, it’s really hard to try to maintain civil discourse when you keep spewing out shit like this:
I’m frankly sick and tired of you impugning my motives and my integrity at every opportunity. Cut that shit out. It only makes you look shrill.
Unlike you, I’m not a gun rights absolutist. Unlike some, I’m not an anti-gun absolutist. I live squarely in the middle. I’m licensed to carry in the State of Tennessee, and my wife and I each own a pistol. But I no more oppose all gun control laws than I would support all gun control laws. I feel that some gun control is necessary — you seem to disagree — and try judge each (proposed and existing) measure by its merits.
Part of my problem with the gun rights lobby (and I really need to blog this) is that they never seem to offer alternatives. They simply vehemently oppose this measure or that, never suggesting a better idea.
As to where I’d draw the line? It’s a fool’s errand to try and set a hard-and-fast line in my view. In a more generalized sense, if the law puts an undue burden on the private individual who wants to sell an old piece, then I’d say it’s a bad law. If gun show checks were implemented as I describe above, I don’t think that could reasonably be described as an undue burden.
Kirk:
That you completely missed the point does not mean that the point was not made. A gun show is a lot more like a gun shop than it is like some guy selling an extra gun he has laying around in the closet. So in that context, it makes sense to regulate a gun show as something more like a commercial sale than a private sale. And this has no impact whatsoever on the guy who just wants to put an ad in the paper and sell his old piece.
July 14th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
I’m not against modest fees. Every time I swipe my credit card at the pump I essentially get a “background check”. If I was on the list of “unworthy of credit” I’d quickly be prevented from buying gas.
The system mostly always works because if it was unreliable they would lose sales. It’s also so inexpensive that the cost is rolled into the price of gas. Now compare LawDog’s experience again. There’s no profit motive to make sure it works. It’s a program run by the government so you can expect the normal quota of “patronage jobs”, “cost overruns”, and “we don’t give a damn if it doesn’t work, it’s not like I’ll lose my job over it” reliability.
Now what if we had a system such that I could swipe my card at the gunshop and have myself instantly approved. That approval would last for say three months at that gunshop and the system is specifically designed such that the fed-goons don’t know if I’ve merely gotten a firearm I already own out of hock or whether or not I’ve bought one gun every single day during those three months. Normal gun shop record keeping would be still implemented such that the BATFE could still trace the occasional firearm recovered at a crime scene.
In other words, fix the problem, don’t just keep expanding the ineffective and unconstitutional system that we have now.
Well, it’s still basically the same argument
We should try, but we need to be careful that the barriers we put up don’t put unnecessary burdens on the generally law abiding. However, you seem to be pushing the “background checks” on everybody, without putting forth one breath to fix what is wrong with the current system.
Let me put it this way, you would be all for extending “midnight basketball” type programs into “basketball until dawn” programs, even in the face that the original “midnight basketball” are expensive, and don’t really reduce crime. You are willing to throw more money at a solution that does not work instead of trying a different, possibly more effective crime fighting solution.
I will admit that my analogy does break down somewhat because neither “midnight basketball” or “basketball until dawn” programs would pose a credible threat to liberty or infringe upon the rights of gun owners. The current Brady check is poorly implemented and does infringe on those rights.
Fix the problems, and prove that they are effective and cost effective before even considering expanding them.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:17 am
However, you seem to be pushing the “background checks” on everybody, without putting forth one breath to fix what is wrong with the current system.
This is a function of the initial complaint. Uncle’s complaint wasn’t “The background check system doesn’t work anyway, so let’s not expand it to cover more gun show sales.” It was “There is no gun show loophole,” which is a completely different argument.
I have said that I’m all for fixing whatever problems may exist with the system, and I stand by that. But to me, that’s a separate issue from the question of whether a non-dealer selling at a gun show is more like a private transaction or a commercial one, for regulatory purposes. I contend that it’s the latter. And the “expansion” we’re talking about here would be an extremely minor one, in my estimation. We’re not talking about massive expansion. We’re talking about patching a hole.
As to your proposed solution, I’m not sure it’s of the sort of problem that profit motivation can fix, although I’m certainly open to considering things.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
I’m saying a carefully designed background check that works properly every time, costs little, doesn’t unduly infringe on the rights of citizens and isn’t a stealth gun registration system is constitutional. I’d also want to be assured that the cost of such a whizzbang system is in line with the benefits. Yes, I know that’s a tall order, but any alternative infringes on my rights. Exactly how to implement the system is not my problem.
Sorry, but the system as we have now is broken and infringes on my rights. I don’t want any expansion at all until things are fixed.
You talk about “patching a hole”, and I hear “It infringes upon our rights as is and doesn’t always work right, and I also can’t prove that the money couldn’t be used somehow more effectively elsewhere, but I think that taking another baby step towards the feds knowing exactly where every single firearm is in this country is a good idea”.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Again, I don’t think “infringe” means what you think it means. “Inconvenience” != “Infringement” Until you get that, we’re probably not going to agree on anything.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Damn, at least I’ve clearly spelled out exactly what I consider over the line. You however have spectificly dodged the question
In otherwords, there’s never a line in the sand for you. and all you want to take is small steps that are all compleatly “reasonable”. You will ignore the questions that I pose about cost effectiveness. You don’t have a problem with yourself having firearms, but have no problems with restrictions for others.
I sorry if this offends you but Dianne Feinstein has a concealed carry permit also. The only difference I see is that she’s been quoted saying “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” quote. You supposably would not go that far but I’m not hearing from you where exactly would you say “This is entirely too far, I won’t support anything beyond this.”
So answer me this. What if we passed a law that required “felon” to be promintily displayed on everyone (that was a felon) drivers licence? That way you could have your instant check, even private parties, and no one would be inconveninced from any failure of any whizz-bang FBI database thingy. I’ll bet that stamping felon on every ID would be a lot cheaper than the stealth gun registry, and in no way would the government be able to get a list of who owns what firearm. Got any problems with that?