Senate Judiciary Chair rejects awb.

[Ipconfig]

Not sure if this has been posted yet.


http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/20 ... apons-ban/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Redneck_Buddha]

Just as I suspected. Gun "friendly" Senate Dems rejecting this like food poisoning. I'm starting to wonder if Feinstein even has an average IQ.

[i8godzilla]

From the OP's link:

David Kopel, an adjunct Professor of constitutional law at Denver University, said universal background checks “are only enforceable with universal gun registration,” which in other countries has left gun ownership “in serious peril.”

[Beiruty]

So her AWB is fried or not yet? I will wait until she get frustrated before I promptly express my opinion.

[C-dub]

Unfortunately, it's not going away that easily or quickly. Wish it would, but it's not.

[K.Mooneyham]

And here is where they pull back from the outrageous bill...while asking for "compromise" something so "common sense" that even the NRA can't oppose it without seeming to be "crazy" or "extreme"...and their "compromise", though nothing of the sort, will be "closing the gun show loophole" (that really doesn't exist as they make it to be, they want to shut down ALL private, face-to-face sales) and creating more hoops for the average citizen to jump through...and another incremental tick mark will be placed on their tally sheet...which is why we MUST re-contact our Congressmen and women, and Senators, and tell them we are against ANY erosion of our rights and make our voices heard that we want any of that mess opposed. About the only tactical concession we MIGHT want to make is to let them close the "gunshow loophole" if it pertains ONLY to gunshows, and gunshows alone, and doesn't restrict face-to-face sales of any other sort.

[C-dub]

And here is where they pull back from the outrageous bill...while asking for "compromise" something so "common sense" that even the NRA can't oppose it without seeming to be "crazy" or "extreme"...and their "compromise", though nothing of the sort, will be "closing the gun show loophole" (that really doesn't exist as they make it to be, they want to shut down ALL private, face-to-face sales) and creating more hoops for the average citizen to jump through...and another incremental tick mark will be placed on their tally sheet...which is why we MUST re-contact our Congressmen and women, and Senators, and tell them we are against ANY erosion of our rights and make our voices heard that we want any of that mess opposed. About the only tactical concession we MIGHT want to make is to let them close the "gunshow loophole" if it pertains ONLY to gunshows, and gunshows alone, and doesn't restrict face-to-face sales of any other sort.

Why would you say that we might want to not allow face-to-face transfers at gunshows, but say it's okay elsewhere? I don't understand that.

What I would accept is strengthening the back ground check. Not requiring it for all transfers, but strengthening the current one and prosecuting those that lie on it to try and buy a gun illegally.

[RoyGBiv]

What I would accept is strengthening the back ground check. Not requiring it for all transfers, but strengthening the current one and prosecuting those that lie on it to try and buy a gun illegally.

How about making it easy and free to run a background check and stolen report on a every gun sale? Make it so that you would have to be an idiot NOT to verify that the gun you're buying isn't stolen or that the seller you're selling to isn't prohibited. But keep it optional. Let people choose.

If you can convince 17-year-old me (a long time ago) that wearing a seatbelt is a good idea, you can easily convince folks to voluntarily run NICS and stolen on every private sale by making it free, easy and SELLING it as good citizenship.

Fix the NICS data to include mental health issues in an appropriate and constitutional way.

Then, when the only transfers outside the NICS system are to relatives, a miniscule quantity between lazy people and between criminals, you can focus, finally, on the criminals.

[bagman45]

The gun grabbers are running a huge "rope-a-dope" here. Even the evil Feinstein is poor mouthing her own proposal saying that "it will be difficult". They are trying to get us to sit back, thinking the battle is over. IT'S NOT!!! They are going for EVERYTHING, hoping to get SOMETHING. After all, in a negotiation, any "reasonable" person will meet in the middle, or at least give "something". I know, I negotiate for a living. Well, in this case, WE MUST GIVE NOTHING!!! Unless, of course, you are willing to give up a bit more of your RIGHT to freedom and liberty.

The gun grabbers are trying to get us to negotiate against ourselves, as they have NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE WITH. We have the 2nd Amendment. It's NOT a negotiable thing. It's not a law. It's not a privilege. IT'S A RIGHT. There are no "parts" to it. There are no "except this" to it. We've already allowed them to regulate many weapons that our forefathers meant us to have access to (check it out; they had CANNONS to fight the British). WE MUST GIVE NO MORE!

Keep your passion. Continue to contact your representatives and all members of government and law enforcement DAILY. Contact the advertisers supporting the media that is working against us. Let them know that you will no longer require their products. THAT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!! This may well be the last fight we have for our liberty. Hope it's not; but act as if it is!!

[VMI77]

And here is where they pull back from the outrageous bill...while asking for "compromise" something so "common sense" that even the NRA can't oppose it without seeming to be "crazy" or "extreme"...and their "compromise", though nothing of the sort, will be "closing the gun show loophole" (that really doesn't exist as they make it to be, they want to shut down ALL private, face-to-face sales) and creating more hoops for the average citizen to jump through...and another incremental tick mark will be placed on their tally sheet...which is why we MUST re-contact our Congressmen and women, and Senators, and tell them we are against ANY erosion of our rights and make our voices heard that we want any of that mess opposed. About the only tactical concession we MIGHT want to make is to let them close the "gunshow loophole" if it pertains ONLY to gunshows, and gunshows alone, and doesn't restrict face-to-face sales of any other sort.

That's impossible to do without registration. And pretty much a fools errand even with registration.

[K.Mooneyham]

And here is where they pull back from the outrageous bill...while asking for "compromise" something so "common sense" that even the NRA can't oppose it without seeming to be "crazy" or "extreme"...and their "compromise", though nothing of the sort, will be "closing the gun show loophole" (that really doesn't exist as they make it to be, they want to shut down ALL private, face-to-face sales) and creating more hoops for the average citizen to jump through...and another incremental tick mark will be placed on their tally sheet...which is why we MUST re-contact our Congressmen and women, and Senators, and tell them we are against ANY erosion of our rights and make our voices heard that we want any of that mess opposed. About the only tactical concession we MIGHT want to make is to let them close the "gunshow loophole" if it pertains ONLY to gunshows, and gunshows alone, and doesn't restrict face-to-face sales of any other sort.

Why would you say that we might want to not allow face-to-face transfers at gunshows, but say it's okay elsewhere? I don't understand that.

What I would accept is strengthening the back ground check. Not requiring it for all transfers, but strengthening the current one and prosecuting those that lie on it to try and buy a gun illegally.

Its hard to word it right in just a paragraph, I guess (now I understand why laws are so difficult to craft). I'm not saying its "okay". That phrase "gun show loophole" has a HUGE investment by the antis. They yell it though their mass media megaphone at almost every opportunity. Its like a mantra that they chant to the public. Well, call their bluff...offer to "close the loophole", ONLY AT GUNSHOWS. Then, you force them to tell the truth that they WANT to shut down all face-to-face, private sales...or they go along with it and lost a potent weapon in their arsenal of lies. They don't work off of facts, they work off of soundbites...and "gun show loophole" is truly a soundbite they've drummed into folks' heads...they really have a lot of low-information people thinking that the thugs are buying guns at gunshows. I don't have the number in front of me, but that 40% junk the other side keeps spouting is bogus...and they know it. What percentage of firearms are sold without a NICS check AT GUN SHOWS? I don't know the exact number, and doubt anyone does, but its a pretty small. And if they do have the temerity to come out and say they want to shut down ALL private sales, then WE ask how they are going to stop thugs from selling to each other...thugs probably aren't buying at gunshows all that much, if I had to guess. IF our side was to do so, it would have to be used as a TACTIC, not just a simple "fine, we're giving in". And if its not going to be used as a tactic, then its not worth doing it.

[K.Mooneyham]

And here is where they pull back from the outrageous bill...while asking for "compromise" something so "common sense" that even the NRA can't oppose it without seeming to be "crazy" or "extreme"...and their "compromise", though nothing of the sort, will be "closing the gun show loophole" (that really doesn't exist as they make it to be, they want to shut down ALL private, face-to-face sales) and creating more hoops for the average citizen to jump through...and another incremental tick mark will be placed on their tally sheet...which is why we MUST re-contact our Congressmen and women, and Senators, and tell them we are against ANY erosion of our rights and make our voices heard that we want any of that mess opposed. About the only tactical concession we MIGHT want to make is to let them close the "gunshow loophole" if it pertains ONLY to gunshows, and gunshows alone, and doesn't restrict face-to-face sales of any other sort.

That's impossible to do without registration. And pretty much a fools errand even with registration.

Oh, I agree with you, most certainly. They don't want to shut down thugs doing face-to-face sales, they want to shut down regular folks doing face-to-face sales...but get them to admit that in public, now that is the trick...which is why they fool the low-information types with the phrase "gun show loophole".

[clarionite]

Oh, I agree with you, most certainly. They don't want to shut down thugs doing face-to-face sales, they want to shut down regular folks doing face-to-face sales...but get them to admit that in public, now that is the trick...which is why they fool the low-information types with the phrase "gun show loophole".

I'd be ok with a "compromise" that requires vendors with a table/booth at a gun show that are selling firearms to have to run a background check. It sort of seems wrong to me that a hobbyist can do the exact same thing without the investment of the license. And who are they really kidding, hobbyist? If you're at each of the gun shows with a table full of weapons, you're doing this for a living. Even if it's a suplemental income. A barber can't legally set up a shop in his home on the side without a license. A plumber isn't supposed to plumb on the side without a license...

But individuals who have brought their weapon to sell or trade at the show, that's a different story. Call them on their bluff, and stop the loophole, the guys at the booth without a license.

[77346]

For the face-to-face private transactions with no FFL involved... how about the buyer calls NICS, gets the background check run and if all is a-OK the buyer gets a certification number. He/she provides this number to the seller, who calls NICS to confirm it's valid (i.e. number matches name on state issued photo ID). Same applies to the seller (gets certification to provide buyers, etc.). This way both parties get the assurance the transaction is legit firearm without having to share too much personal information.

This could perhaps be done on-line too, rather than by phone. This way both the private seller and buyer are background checked, but the transaction itself it not "registered."

One of my fears when I sell a firearm is that it will end up in the wrong hands... and that it will be traced back to me, making for some uncomfortable situation. So, I always sell to people I know (close friends or family) or to a CHL holder willing to sign a Bill of Sale.

[RoyGBiv]

For the face-to-face private transactions with no FFL involved... how about the buyer calls NICS, gets the background check run and if all is a-OK the buyer gets a certification number. He/she provides this number to the seller, who calls NICS to confirm it's valid (i.e. number matches name on state issued photo ID). Same applies to the seller (gets certification to provide buyers, etc.). This way both parties get the assurance the transaction is legit firearm without having to share too much personal information.

This could perhaps be done on-line too, rather than by phone. This way both the private seller and buyer are background checked, but the transaction itself it not "registered."

One of my fears when I sell a firearm is that it will end up in the wrong hands... and that it will be traced back to me, making for some uncomfortable situation. So, I always sell to people I know (close friends or family) or to a CHL holder willing to sign a Bill of Sale.

Not a bad idea....