Clinton, Colorado & gunshow "loophole"

S

Spike

Inactive
Though rarely reported or acknowledged it has always been my understanding that had the current Brady Bill been in effect prior to the 1981 Reagan assassanation attempt, it would NOT have prevented Hinckley from purchasing a firearm. Same for Purdy and the Stockton, CA. shootings (in his case, due to plea bargaining, felonies reduced to misds.)

In regard to Clinton's appearance today in Colorado, what is the background of the man arrested/charged with selling the Columbine shooters their guns? He allegedly bought the guns at a gunshow. Would the proposed check, had it been in effect, accomplished (prevented) anything? I suspect, not.

Does anyone in TFL have add. info?

Spike
 
Typical of the media and libs...."The Gunshow Loophole" really refers to private sales/trades (i.e between you and I or you and Oleg)...the way gunshows figure into the equation is merely that a gunshow is an event where sellers and buyers are attracted and gather.
The gunshow loophole is no different than you placing a classified advert in the newspaper, and me calling you up and buying your gun.
Basically, if they can pass a law prohibiting private sales without a check at the gunshow, they are obligated to then pass a law banning private sales all togther. Some states have done this all ready.

As for Columbine, I'm not sure if the original seller did anything illegal....he sold to the girl who was legal to buy. She (got off scoot free) is the one who actually did the illegal thing...she gave the guns to minors; who couldn't have gotten them without her help. And you know she knew that the boys were up to no good.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
DC, RE: the girl who obtained the Columbine killer's guns for them: it's not as simple as giving guns to minors; - the girl gave the guns to minor FELONS. The two killers had recently pled guilty to a felony (breaking into a van) and shouldn't even have been running around loose.
 
Tonight on the MSNBC airing of Brokaw and Clinton at the town hall meeting in Denver, Clinton admitted that even the proposed legislation would not have prevented the woman from buying those guns for the Columbine shooting.

This is not a f***ing gun issue!!
 
In plain and forthright language, what is really at issue here is the right to make private sales of firearms ,and has nothing to do with..... "being at a gun show."
--------------------------------------------
If a private sale of a fire arm is illegal at a gun show ,the private sale will be just as illegal at your home when you place an add in the newspaper to sell your
firearm.
--------------------------------------------
This issue was dealt with here in Conn
by reqiuring all private sales to do the same
paperwork and nics instant check as would be done at a gun shop.

The private seller must call the state police and phone in the buyers state pistol permit number and is given a nics number in only 8 to 10 minutes or a delay or a do not proceed.

Once the nics number is issued the sale can proceed but all paperwork that a gun shop does must be done by the private seller.

With rifles & shot guns, a nics number is still required , but the purchaser is allowed to buy without a state pistol permit or state hunting license ; however, after the record chech is made and before the nics number is issued , a 14 day wait "cool off period"
must be endured by the purchaser who has neither a state pistol permit or a current & valid state hunting license.

Gun Shows were "STOPPED" here in Conn., the gun bigot's dream "Constitution State",by the simple expedience of all cities and towns refusing to rent public facilities to gun show organizers.

Unelse Conn gun Show organizers can find PRIVATELY OWNED facilities (halls) outside the city or town limits, as appropiate,and private owners willing to rent to them or purchase their own facility; the LAST Conn. gun show will be this summer.

LONG LIVE THE SECOND AMMENDMENT IN AMERICA;
THE LAND OF THE "free?" and the home of the "brave?"!
Well, maybe it was, 200 years ago.

[This message has been edited by ernest2 (edited April 13, 2000).]
 
ernst2, if you know any gun show promoters in Conn. you might let them know that Todd Bean, a promoter in Texas, successfully sued, in federal court, the city of Houston for violating his first ammendment rights to free speech and freedom of expression by not allowing him participate in a legal activity in a govt owned building. After winning in federal court he has been awarded $300,000 in civil court for legal fees and lost revenue. The $300,000 judgement is under appeal. Gun shows are now able to be held in Houston convention centers.
 
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE CRIMINAL OBTAINS A FIREARM!. If it's going to be used with criminal intent, that's a mute point!! And the Anti's know this.

Look at the Jeffrey Daumer(sp?) case. Did the presecutors go after the dentist who performed work on his teeth? Or the manufacturer of the crowns in his teeth?
Or the manufacturer of the Novacaine used during his dental procedures? Or the maker of the Nitrous Oxide (if used) during the same procedures? I think not on all cases.

Why not??? They are the ones who made it possible for him to cannibalize others in his sick walk through life. He didn't really have the capability to perform such activity upon his own accord. He was a pawn of the evil dentistry industry!!!

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited April 13, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top