McCain and the Gun Show Loophole

Wrong side of the issue indeed. So what should he do, lie? I won't vote for him, period. As mountnclimbr has mentioned, reporting FTF sales IS registration.
Come on, incremental to achieve the same end....
 
Requiring a background check for a firearms purchase is not registration. registration is registration.
Click to expand...

When the background check results in records that are retained then it is de facto registration. Colorado requires background checks for sales at gun shows. When these records are not destroyed as required by law "to have BATF testing media, yada, yada..." it is registration.

If ftf transfers are required to have background checks, there is no way to enforce this law unless you require registration of every firearm before it can be transferred.

Even now the courts have not found that a total handgun ban is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Do you really trust these same people to say that background check information cannot be used for "other" purposes?
 
It was discovered last year that BATF was NOT destroying records, as required by law. That should give us a CLUE. No need to pay the dollar for one...
 
I think we need to remember that we're talking about the same government that has the power to break into your house, search it and your computer hard-drive then leave without telling you they were there. We have all sorts of assurances thet the record of the sale in question is destroyed within 24 hours but do you trust them? I don't.
Click to expand...

Its not about trust, its about being accurate. Forcing FTF sales to conform to the background checks that one goes through when buying from an FFL is not registration.

When the background check results in records that are retained then it is de facto registration. Colorado requires background checks for sales at gun shows. When these records are not destroyed as required by law "to have BATF testing media, yada, yada..." it is registration.
Click to expand...

But the pesky little fact that the forms have to be destroyed means is isn't registration. I dont hear you contending that we currently have registration now, so unless you are going to do that, it doesn't follow that making ftf transfers have the same background checks constitutes registration.
 
Stage2 said:
And as I said before, there are ways around this including liability waivers and such.
Click to expand...

But the way the law was written, you'd need a criminality waiver, not a liability waiver, and the government doesn't issue those. If I'm a show promoter and I make you sign something that says you won't sell guns at my show, and I won't be liable if you do, it would not change the fact that if you did go and sell a gun at my show without a bg check, I could be facing criminal charges. We can't just waive the law.
 
But the pesky little fact that the forms have to be destroyed means is isn't registration.
Click to expand...

There sure are lots of political fights about those forms, and it has been discovered that they were illegally kept when they should have been destroyed. The gungrabbers really can't stand it when a bill comes along that would require destroying the forms faster. I have one question:

Why?

A registration scheme would somehow match weapons to owners, and we don't have registration, so please answer the question without reference to matching weapons to owners or using the word registration. ;)

I also wonder why the issue of individuals selling guns at shows is so darn important to the government. In a sea of gun dealers selling guns to ordinary customers with a background check, you have maybe one or two guys wandering around wearing a sandwich board and carrying an AR-15 or something for sale. Why is that particular drop in the bucket the cause of such concern? The same guy can do the same thing anywhere else, and it's not a big deal, but if he does it at a gun show, we need a federal law to stop it. And we need propaganda campaigns suggesting that the gun dealers "traditionally" do not perform background checks at gun shows.

Why?

I'm not being flip or anything. Think about why they get so upset about destroying those background check forms. The relevance of a background check ends with the sale of the gun, yet they want to keep them. Think about why the tiny handful of individual to individual gun sales at gun shows are so politically important. Why are gun control folks acting this way?
 
It may be just this simple...as to the "why"

Because they can, and they want to. Any and everything they can do to make buying, owning, and goodness sakes, actually using guns in a lawful manner, more trouble, more expensive, more time consuming, more anything except easy, the better they like it. The long term goal is that if they cannot outright legislate away private gun ownership, they can make it so unpleasant that few, if any will bother.

The why those few guns sold by private (non FFL) individuals are so important is politics. It began with the antis creating an issue where none actually exists, and pushing their tools in govt to do something about it. Once they get any issue on the table, it is hard for lawmakers to ignore it without leaving themselves open to the criticism that they do not care about public safety.

The anti's make mountains out of molehills, and hang them over the heads of lawmakers, by deliberate false and misleading statements in the media, and by using the broadest possible definitions, and the narrowest interpretations, whenever it works to their advantage, and ignoring reality whenever possible.

To these people, anyone holding a gun is a "gunowner". Anyone stepping off the pavement while holding a gun is a "hunter". Anyone selling a gun is a "gun dealer". They make no distinction between an FFL dealer, ordinary citizens selling a gun or two, but not "engaged in the business", and the criminal gunrunner selling fraudulently obtained/stolen guns out of the trunk of his car. To the antis, all are equally "gun dealers". So, in their minds, they are telling the truth when they say "gun dealers" don't do background checks at gun shows. The gun dealers they are referring to are private sellers, (generally) not required by law (and in most cases technically prohibited by law) from conducting an NICS type background check. But they conveniently don't mention (and possibly don't know) that at a gun show, FFL dealers must operate under the same rules as they do from their storefront, except for the location. And this makes it sound like the FFL dealers are ducking their legal responsibility, in order to make a profit by selling guns to criminals. Even terrorists! How could any responsible lawmaker allow this to go on?

So they agitate, and hound legislators (those not already on their side), with the aid of the corrupt media who repeats any "soundbyte" the anti's make up, and do it endlessly, and for free, while pro gun messages must be paid for at full price, when they are even accepted at all, which is seldom.

The appearance of victory is very important, much more important to the antis than the actual effect of gun control laws. They will fight tooth and nail to get laws passed that do effectively nothing to control crime, as long as they inconvienence the lawful gun owner it is enough for them to claimi a victory. Understand that not only do these people hate and fear guns, they also hate the fact that we do not. They cannot stand the fact that we actually enjoy them. Anything that has the potential to reduce our enjoyment of firearms is almost as satisfying to them as a law that actually reduces gun ownership.

Hate, fear, and quite possibly a degree of envy is what they operate on, and doing anything that upsets us is something they feel good about.
 
44amp,

I think your explanation probably applies to quite a few people on this issue, but do you suppose it applies to the subject of this thread, John McCain?

I'd hate to think so, but I'm waiting for a better explanation for his support for S890.
 
Senator Clinton was about an anti gun as that proverbial summer's day is long. Ditto for Senator Obama, correct me if I'm wrong. Senator McCain still talks of "closing the gun show loophole".

Is there ANYWHERE a canditate that supports constitutional rights? If so, whatever happens to such people, as they never seem to become nominees.

While it is certainly true that the president does not rule be decree, at least not officially, given that there is a good change that the Democrats will control both houses of the national legislature after the November elections, the role of president, with it's inherent powers, and influence does, at least as I see the thing, become of increased importance.

As to McCain's alleged support for gun rights, is he to be trusted?
 
As to McCain's alleged support for gun rights, is he to be trusted?
Click to expand...


Hit the link at the top of post 29 and read the piece of anti-gun trash that McCain sponsored. Despite recent lies to the contrary Juan McCain wants to eliminate gun shows. :mad:
 
Comment: Even Paul Helmke, of the Brady GunGrabbers, paints McCain as being anti-gun, based on past issue statements. Of course he caps this article questioning McCain's ultimate motives, but nonetheless supporting McCain's views when they conflict with the NRA. What are we to make of that?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/2008/06/10/mccain-on-crime-gun-trace-data/
During Sen. John McCain’s speech to a National Rifle Association gathering in D.C. in September 2007, he said the following:

So you know, my friends, you’re a sophisticated crowd. You know politics and you know politicians. You’re pretty used to hearing aspirants for public office come before you and pledge fealty to the cause of the Second Amendment. You know you need to dig into a politician’s record to find out where they really stand. You know some will change their positions or have little record for you to judge, and my friends, that’s not the case with me.

While Sen. McCain did reference his support for closing the gun show loophole, as I’ve discussed before, he implied that this was the only gun control issue where he parted ways with the NRA.

My staff did a little digging and found an interesting passage from a longer floor speech Sen. McCain delivered to the Senate in January 2004. In it, he takes three common-sense stands in favor of what are today key items in the Brady Campaign’s legislative agenda.

First, Sen. McCain spoke against the restrictions on ATF trace data sponsored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), even as those restrictions were pushed by the National Rifle Association. (As Rep. Tiahrt said himself, “I wanted to make sure I was fulfilling the needs of my friends who are firearms dealers.” NRA officials “were very helpful in making sure I had my bases covered,” Rep. Tiahrt said.)

Next, Sen. McCain spoke against the requirement to destroy records of firearms transactions within 24 hours, preferring the 90-day rule that gave law enforcement time to catch prohibited purchasers not immediately rejected by Brady criminal background checks.

Finally, Sen. McCain spoke against the prohibition on ATF to conduct inventory audits of licensed gun dealers, which allowed law enforcement to keep track of “lost” or “stolen” weapons – like the Bushmaster assault rifle used by the DC snipers.

For some reason, there has been little discussion of Sen. McCain’s 2004 statements about the Tiahrt restrictions against ATF, the 24-hour record destruction rule, and the inventory audit procedures of gun stores. There is no mention of them on his campaign Web site, in his speeches to the NRA, nor in the recent discussions he had with NRA leadership.

Here are Sen. McCain’s comments from 2004:

“Instant Check/Gun Provision

Mr. President, let me state from the outset that I take a backseat to no one in my support for Second Amendment rights, and I have supported nearly every law that protects the rights of law abiding gun owners since first coming to Washington. But there is a special interest rider included in this Omnibus appropriations bill that’s absolutely appalling. The House sponsor of this provision has argued that it benefits gun owners, but the only gun owners it seems to help are those who have broken the law!

This rider has three major provisions - all of them unnecessary for gun owners and none of them helpful for law enforcement. First, it requires that background check approval records be destroyed within 24 hours instead of the current policy of 90 days. Proponents argue that keeping these records for 90 days constitutes a national firearm registry.

I want to be very clear that I oppose federal registration of firearms. I also want to be equally clear that our current policy of keeping these records for 90 days does not constitute in any way, shape, or form a national registry. It’s a phony issue.

The 90 days retention allows the NICS system to correct mistakes that occur when they accidentally approve someone who should have been denied a gun in the first place. This happens about 500 times a year, according to GAO. Nearly all of these false approvals are because of missing domestic violence records. So, as far as I can tell, this provision benefits no one except those who should have been denied a firearm, but were not.

The second provision prevents ATF from conducting an inventory audit of licensed gun stores. This means that ATF auditors will have no way of knowing if a gun store is missing firearms - a sure sign that they are selling guns illegally and without the proper background checks.

Mr. President, in Tacoma, Washington, ATF auditors discovered 233 firearms missing from Bull’s Eye Shooters Supply store. One of those weapons was used by the accused DC-area snipers. Why are we putting special language in a must-pass federal spending bill to protect a store like Bull’s Eye? Consider the potential consequences.

And a third provision prohibits the public release of crime gun trace information. This information is not top secret data that jeopardizes our national security, or hinders law enforcement. We cannot have a government that operates in secret and refuses to release information that shows where criminals have obtained a gun.

This provision has no support from the law enforcement community, and was even opposed by Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairman Wolf. Yet, here it is today, included in this terrible bill. Mr. President, this language is an embarrassment to law abiding gun owners and is a slap in the face to law enforcement.”

It would be very interesting to hear whether Sen. McCain still supports these positions today.
Click to expand...
 
I want to be very clear that I oppose federal registration of firearms. I also want to be equally clear that our current policy of keeping these records for 90 days does not constitute in any way, shape, or form a national registry.
Click to expand...

It constitutes a 90 day registration, or else how could it allow

the NICS system to correct mistakes that occur when they accidentally approve someone who should have been denied a gun in the first place.
Click to expand...
 
It also allows alot of other things to be "observed" Pub. as I'm sure you know.

For McCain to say it is a phony issue is ludicrous IMHO. :mad:

For 90 days, your purchase is in the system for authorities to "observe". Hmmm.........? :(

Once an "item" is kept for 90 days, who is to say that all aspects of that transaction will be destroyed by everyone who has had access to it?

It starts the ball rolling for a future "need" where someone argues "we need 180 days to better carry out our mission..... or 360 days... or forever" Come on now McCain... a phony issue?
 
publius42 writes:
Quote:
But the pesky little fact that the forms have to be destroyed means is isn't registration.
There sure are lots of political fights about those forms, and it has been discovered that they were illegally kept when they should have been destroyed. The gun grabbers really can't stand it when a bill comes along that would require destroying the forms faster. I have one question:

Why?

A registration scheme would somehow match weapons to owners, and we don't have registration, so please answer the question without reference to matching weapons to owners or using the word registration.

I also wonder why the issue of individuals selling guns at shows is so darn important to the government. In a sea of gun dealers selling guns to ordinary customers with a background check, you have maybe one or two guys wandering around wearing a sandwich board and carrying an AR-15 or something for sale. Why is that particular drop in the bucket the cause of such concern? The same guy can do the same thing anywhere else, and it's not a big deal, but if he does it at a gun show, we need a federal law to stop it. And we need propaganda campaigns suggesting that the gun dealers "traditionally" do not perform background checks at gun shows.

Why?

I'm not being flip or anything. Think about why they get so upset about destroying those background check forms. The relevance of a background check ends with the sale of the gun, yet they want to keep them. Think about why the tiny handful of individual to individual gun sales at gun shows are so politically important. Why are gun control folks acting this way?

Publius:

As to your "why's", I submit that the answer is all to simple. The antis seek, among other things, registration of inanimate objects (guns), people and likely whatever else you care to list.

Personally speaking, I do not care overly much about the registration of automobiles, provided that the fees charged do not become excessive, for nobody has ever proposed the confiscation of automobiles, so far as I know, except possibly in very limited circumstances. One simply cannot say the same for guns, at least for those in the possession of the law abiding. Registration really does lead to confiscation. It did in New York City, it did in New Jersey, it did in California, and I'm certain that it also did in other locales
too. In addition, the bureaucrats, otherwise known as "public servants" are unworthy of the publics trust. Beside that, when there is an actual penalty spelled out for failure to destroy the records, all copies too, when if ever have any of the miscreants who act in violation of specifications actually been p[punished, that's spelled fired, kicked off of the public tit, let alone jailed, having first been separated from their retirement benefits?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top