The Bradys are excited: Time to get to work.

[nitrogen]

The second amendment says, "Shall NOT BE INFRINGED"

It doesnt say "Shall not be infringed unless we don't like you"

There's no constitutional protection to own a car. There is one to own a weapon.

It may or may not be a good idea to try and keep felons from owning weapons, but our constution currently doesn't say "criminals cannot own weapons"

[Purplehood]

The second amendment says, "Shall NOT BE INFRINGED"

It doesnt say "Shall not be infringed unless we don't like you"

There's no constitutional protection to own a car. There is one to own a weapon.

It may or may not be a good idea to try and keep felons from owning weapons, but our constution currently doesn't say "criminals cannot own weapons"

As I understand it the Constitution does allow for infringement of rights for various reasons, such as being convicted of a felony.

[Purplehood]

I have noticed that the majority (99.9%) of posters on this forum absolutely and unequivocally believe that there is in reality no "gunshow loophole".

I just wanted to bring up one other reason the loophole is a fallacy and the claim is a deliberate lie. Now that others have explained to you about the private sale and we all understand the potential problem with it (yes, a person may unknowingly sell to a felon - if they do it knowingly they are committing a crime), I wanted to show you why the loophole itself claim is a lie and why the private sellers are the real target.

The claim made about the gun show loophole is that the guns are being sold by "unlicensed dealers". Of course, the Brady Campaign will say they are not trying to stop some private individual from selling his gun, but they are worried about all of these unlicensed dealers selling. But, there is no such thing as a legal unlicensed dealer. As I was pointing out, if a person is in the business of selling firearms, the federal law requires a license. It is a felony to be in the business and not have the license. And the really neat part of the law is that it does not define what is meant by in the business. Obviously, profit is not part of the equation (many businesses make no profit for years). No where is the number of firearms sold stated as a guide, either.

If I make a habit of buying one firearm each month at the gunshow and then selling it the next month, the ATF could call me a dealer. I might be able to defend myself in court by explaining that I just like to try a lot of different guns as a hobby and show I did not ever try to make a profit on them (the intent might help but is not part of the law), but this is not a sure defense. Another example is if I have been collecting firearms for several decades and now want to liquidate my collection. I set up a table and put 100 guns on it. Am I a dealer now? The ATF might claim so and I might be able to defend against it, but it is not a sure thing.

But if I am a dealer and do not have a license, I am committing crimes. It seems like it would be fairly easy to make the case against me for being an "unlicensed dealer" if I set up at more than one gun show. And if I am a licensed dealer, the same laws apply to me at the gun show as at my store.

Thus, there is no such thing as a gunshow loophole. I am either a legal dealer obeying the law, a felon committing crimes, or a private individual selling my personal property.

If the Brady bunch want to have a debate on the reasonability of requiring all gun sales to go through a background check, this is different than making up some claim of a loophole to deceive people. I am a firm believer that when someone starts lying to me about a proposed law, the target must be something other than what he is saying. In this case, there are two possible targets. The first is to stop the private individual from selling at all without going through a dealer. The second possibility is that they are trying to stop gun shows altogether, using this as a means to reduce the numbers of guns in the citizen's hands. Given the onerous requirements that keep getting proposed for the gun show promoter, I tend to lean towards the second with the first as a hoped for by-product.

But, there is no loophole like the Brady Bunch claims, and this makes anything they say suspect.

That is what I was hoping for. There is a law covering the "loophole" that is as usual, simply being ignored/overlooked.

[A-R]

srothstein, yours is one of the most well articulated arguments on the subject I have read in a long time.

nitrogen, forgive me, but are you advocating for criminals (or more precisely convicted criminals) to be legally allowed to own/possess firearms?

[nitrogen]

srothstein, yours is one of the most well articulated arguments on the subject I have read in a long time.

nitrogen, forgive me, but are you advocating for criminals (or more precisely convicted criminals) to be legally allowed to own/possess firearms?

Yes. Former criminals that have served their full required sentences or otherwise had their sentences commuted or discharged. Not necessarily folks on parole or early release type programs, but I wouldn't mind it if their felonly wasn't violent (i.e. Martha Stewart)

I also think they should have their voting rights universally restored.

It's getting really easy to restrict rights of people in this country just because they are politically inconvienient (i.e. felons, homosexuals, etc) and that really bothers me as an American.

EDITED TO ADD:
If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a weapon, they should be injail anyway.

[A-R]

srothstein, yours is one of the most well articulated arguments on the subject I have read in a long time.

nitrogen, forgive me, but are you advocating for criminals (or more precisely convicted criminals) to be legally allowed to own/possess firearms?

Yes. Former criminals that have served their full required sentences or otherwise had their sentences commuted or discharged. Not necessarily folks on parole or early release type programs, but I wouldn't mind it if their felonly wasn't violent (i.e. Martha Stewart)

I also think they should have their voting rights universally restored.

It's getting really easy to restrict rights of people in this country just because they are politically inconvienient (i.e. felons, homosexuals, etc) and that really bothers me as an American.

EDITED TO ADD:
If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a weapon, they should be injail anyway.

OK, well as long as the qualifier of "nonviolent" felony is included, I can understand completely the basis for your argument. In my book, anyone convicted of a violent felony should never possess a gun or a vote ever again, no matter how well rehabilitated they are. I don't believe in absolute "lock 'em up and throw away the key" philosophy - I believe people can change, can be rehabilitated and do deserve a second chance at life - but that comes with some conditions and restrictions. Don't like having to live with these restrictions? Then don't commit violent crimes.

As far as nonviolent criminals, as I said I see your point, but I'm honestly not sure where to draw the line. Someone who commits securities fraud (i.e. Martha Stewart) or any sort of voter fraud or elections fraud does not, IMHO, possess the necessary integrity to be allowed to vote again. And again, if you don't like this, then don't commit the crime.

Where I agree with you strongly is on the drastically overzealous punishment of petty drug users. I am as anti-drugs as anyone I know, but a guy who made a mistake and bought a few ounces of weed when he was in college shouldn't be punished for the rest of his life. I say we carpet bomb the coca fields of Columbia, but rehabilitate and return to society with full rights all the users. Now THAT is a real war on drugs.

I also believe very strongly in punishment as a deterrent to crime. I honestly don't believe any human has the right to kill another human except in absolute self-defense - and even then the goal cannot be to "kill" only to "stop". But I strongly believe in the death penalty as a deterrent to capital crimes. I don't like that a human has to throw the switch, but folks on death row most certainly "deserve it". Likewise, the loss of such rights as ownership of guns or voting, can be a strong deterrent to committing other crimes.

Anyway, good discussion. I very much enjoy reading all viewpoints. I'm sitting at my desk on a Friday morning and marveling at the civility with which different opinions are expressed on this board. So much better than another board that will remain nameless where discussion of such issues invited acid-tongued responses and unwarranted "banishment" etc. This board is inhabited by adults - not the petulent children of other boards.

[megs]

If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a weapon, they should be injail anyway.

+1

[bdickens]

I hate to be the English language Gestapo here, but I can't stand it when people misuse words. The word "fallacy" means an error in logic, not an error in fact. It is possible to get all of your facts wrong yet still construct a logical argument that doesn't contain any fallacies.

We are supposed to be the intelligent ones on this issue, so let's use our words properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK, rant over.

[wheelgun1958]

Anyone with over 900 posts on this forum should know the laws concerning firearms purchases and transfers. Furthermore, there is no qualification clause in the Second Amendment.

[jimlongley]

The "gun show loophole" that the Brady bunch wants to close is really an end to all private-party unregulated sales. As previously posted, this would have the effect of forcing everyone who wanted to sell (or even just transfer) a gun to use an FFL to broker the transaction. This seriously could require your grandpa to take all his old guns down to the local gun store or pawn shop in order to legaly give them to you. Could add another step to the probate process if grandpa wills the guns to you after his death. Kinda ridiculous when you put it that way, isn't it?

This is it exactly, once the "gunshow loophole" is closed, no more private sales between individuals, period. No transfers, no gifts, no nothing.

[Locke]

Once a felon pay's his debt to society in full they should have all of their rights restored. Voting, gun ownership etc..

[nitrogen]

Anyway, good discussion. I very much enjoy reading all viewpoints. I'm sitting at my desk on a Friday morning and marveling at the civility with which different opinions are expressed on this board. So much better than another board that will remain nameless where discussion of such issues invited acid-tongued responses and unwarranted "banishment" etc. This board is inhabited by adults - not the petulent children of other boards.

This is one of the big reasons I stay here. I probably disagree with many here on 30-60% of politics outside of guns, but almost everyone here is good people, and just because I disagree with them doesn't mean they arent good folks and I wouldnt want to hopefully meet many of 'em at CHLForum day. (And hopefully they feel the same about me!)

[nitrogen]

Anyway, good discussion. I very much enjoy reading all viewpoints. I'm sitting at my desk on a Friday morning and marveling at the civility with which different opinions are expressed on this board. So much better than another board that will remain nameless where discussion of such issues invited acid-tongued responses and unwarranted "banishment" etc. This board is inhabited by adults - not the petulent children of other boards.

This is one of the big reasons I stay here. I probably disagree with many here on 30-60% of politics outside of guns, but almost everyone here is good people, and just because I disagree with them doesn't mean they arent good folks and I wouldnt want to hopefully meet many of 'em at CHLForum day. (And hopefully they feel the same about me!)

[boomerang]

You can say that again!

[Liberty]

The point about felons being armed.
I believe that the whole problem is there just aren't enough armed people around. Someone once said "an armed society is a polite society" (Heinlan ?) If every one were were armed even the felons we might all be nicer to each other.

Just a thought.. Not particularly thought out well ...