Gun show "snubs" voluntary checks (my emphasis)

Oatka

New member
It seems to me the promoter should have kept the booth even though nobody used it, for appearances sake if nothing else. By taking it down it just gives the antis one more opening, especially with the impending initiatives.

I sent an email to this "reporter" and cc'd the editor, pointing out how he slanted this article. It probably won't do any good, but it might make him aware that he's not fooling anyone. For those of you in Oregon, it wouldn't hurt to call. Maybe our constant sniping (no pun intended) might force them to tone down the B/S.

Gun show snubs voluntary checks
An exhibitor calls Metro's screening program a failure after no one uses it
Friday, March 24, 2000

By Mark Larabee of The Oregonian staff

Gun owners hoping to sell a weapon at this weekend's Rose City Gun Collectors show at the Portland Expo Center won't see a booth where they can check a prospective buyer's criminal background.

That option, available for the first time last month at the behest of the Metro regional government, was an utter flop, show patrons and officials admit. Not one private seller used the service during three days of dealing.

"They didn't work," said Ken Glass, owner of the show. "It's just too complicated for a private dealer to make a sale."

Mike Burton, Metro executive officer, said the voluntary background check is a good way to curb the sale of firearms to criminals and juveniles. The voluntary checks were proposed in talks late last year after the Oregon Legislature failed by one vote to mandate background checks at guns shows statewide.

Glass set up the booth at last month's show, but he said Metro forced it on him. He and other gun-rights advocates urged gun show patrons to send postcards to Burton expressing distaste with Metro's tactics. About 500 were sent.

Now it appears that Glass' gun shows -- he's
scheduled seven at the Expo Center this year -- might be in for more than gentle persuasion when his contract to use the center is renegotiated in June.

"I don't know what we could have done to make it easier," Burton said of last month's trial run. "It's hard to get people to participate when the sponsors of the show are ridiculing the program. Now we're going to try and figure out what to do without their help."

Under state law, only federally licensed firearms dealers are required to run background checks on gun buyers. Private sellers, which include people selling one gun as well as collectors who display an array of weapons for sale or trade, are not bound by the same rules.

Against the backdrop of school shootings and other gun violence, the debate about gun accessibility has reached a fever pitch in Oregon and the nation.

Two initiative petitions attempting to qualify for the November ballot -- answers to the 1999 Legislature's near miss -- would require background checks at gun shows.
Last month, President Clinton gave federal agents new enforcement powers to crack down on corrupt gun dealers who sell to criminals. He also has been pushing Congress to adopt a juvenile crime bill that includes mandatory background checks at gun shows.

Last week, Smith & Wesson, the nation's largest handgun-maker, agreed to accept an array of restrictions on the way it makes, sells and distributes its products in exchange for ending some lawsuits that threatened to bankrupt it.

Among other things, the company will place a second, "hidden" set of serial numbers in its new weapons to make it harder for criminals to scratch off identifying marks. It also promises to sell a trigger lock with each new handgun.

"Obviously, Smith & Wesson gets it," Burton said. "Unfortunately, these other guys don't."

Police, lawmakers and other officials have long suspected gun show sales to be a source for guns used in crimes. In a January report, Metro officials said they took a hard look in 1999 at who was buying guns at the Expo Center shows. Along with legitimate buyers, they found criminals, gang members and juveniles. Burton said that as top administrator of the publicly owned building, he feels responsible for public safety.

"We're creating a situation where illegal activities are taking place in a public building," he said. "Nobody's trying to keep people from buying guns."

Burton said he is considering what to do next. He has not ruled out charging the promoters more money for an added police presence, which he considers necessary to meet safety objectives.

Glass said that he hasn't heard from Metro since last month but that he's watching the debate and expects some shift.

"It's a matter of time before the Clinton administration really pushes this down," he said.

You can reach Mark Larabee at 503-294-7664 or by e-mail at marklarabee@news.oregonian.com.
(The editor is at kcosgrov@oregonlive.com)

Copyright 2000 Oregon Live. All rights reserved.


------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"Obviously, Smith & Wesson gets it," Burton said. "Unfortunately, these other guys don't." [/quote]

Yeah, right up the watoozy...

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

"We're creating a situation where illegal activities are taking place in a public building," he said.


[/quote]

Like in the Whitehouse? ;)

Halffast

------------------
"I say that big talk is worth doodly-squat." Granny Hawkins from the Outlaw Josey Wales

[This message has been edited by Halffast (edited March 26, 2000).]
 
Only an idiot would get involved in any background checking if he did not hve to do so. It could only add to the possibility of inadvertantly involving oneself in crimeless felonies and legal liabilities. The government itself is resopsible for creating this atmosphere.
 
This is another amazing example of people expecting other people to do things that they aren't required to do. It is not illegal to sell a gun privately without a background check, yet because some third party thinks it's a good idea, everyone should do it.

Why don't they simply make it illegal to do business with anyone who is a criminal, and then we'll need background checks to buy a pizza. It really cheeses me off (pun intended) that the government can pass laws that WE must enforce. If we're enforcing the laws, then what do we need you for?
 
Back
Top