Ron Paul surges (16%) in Pennsylvania primary!

[publius42]

John McCain has never supported the elimination of non-FFL transfers, regardless of what relationship (if any) exists between the buyer and seller.

That is wrong. He has supported, and continues to support, the elimination of non-FFL transfers if the relationship between the individuals is that they are at a gun show.

A few years ago, McCain joined with Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman in calling for gun safety legislation, specifically advocating background checks at gun shows, which traditionally do not require criminal checks for purchase.

McCain reiterated this stance, saying “I recognize that gun shows are enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans. I do not support efforts by those who seek to regulate them out of existence. But I believe an accurate, fair and instant background check at guns shows is a reasonable requirement.”

OK, who is supposed to conduct that background check and keep the records, if not an FFL dealer?

ETA: notice how PBS identifies the "Independent" Lieberman and our Maverick McCain as breaking with the "tradition" at gun shows of having transactions without background checks. It's no "tradition" at all. Gun shows are just like any place else in terms of law and tradition: dealers run their checks and individuals can buy and sell guns without any government supervision.

 

[publius42]

If I design and build a new rifle and bring it to a gun show and wind up selling it to a guy who lives down the street, is that interstate commerce?

Must be. (Link is to pdf of Stewart opinion, as revised in light of Raich opinion.)

Can anyone name a political issue that I can't connect to interstate commerce?

 

[benign.neglect]

Wouldnt closing the gun show loophole have eliminated private sales as we know them, and require buyers and sellers to go through background checks?

Fremmer, could you please address this?

At best, McCain supports severely changing the way private sales are carried out, if not totally eliminating them.

 

[Fremmer]

If you are a felon or mentally ill and dangerous, you won't be able to buy a gun at a gun show. McCain does advocate that. But private sales will still occur at gunshows. McCain has never advocated eliminating non-FFL sales of firearms, which is why you can't produce a statement by McCain stating otherwise.

And it takes too much energy to explain why the assertion that McCain wants to end private gun sales (anywhere) is a misrepresentation. Keep looking at the statement, the context of the statement, and read the actual words used in the statement, don't add any additional words and/or speculate, and eventually you'll understand. Maybe.

Edited to add: And John McCain's voting record on gun legislation is better than Ron Paul's record. McCain voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The law which keeps gun manufacurers and people who sell guns from being sued out of business. Ron Paul voted against that Act. For some reason. But he's still surging, so continue on.

 

[miboso]

John McCain's voting record on gun legislation is better than Ron Paul's record

Ah, but Paul's voting record in regard to following the Constitution is better than McCain's record. But then again, the majority of the people can't be bothered with following the entire Constitution. They just like to highlight the parts they like, and ignore the rest.

 

[benign.neglect]

If you are a felon or mentally ill and dangerous, you won't be able to buy a gun at a gun show.

Fremmer, those aren't the only groups of people who would not be able to buy a gun at a gunshow as a private deal.

Under McCain's proposal anyone who did not want to undergo a background check would not be able to buy a gun in a private sale at a gun show.

Is McCain better on the gun issue than Obama? Certainly!

Is McCain generally pro-gun? YES!

But there is no need to sugar coat and misrepresent what McCain has proposed regarding gun shows.

 

[STAGE 2]

Under McCain's proposal anyone who did not want to undergo a background check would not be able to buy a gun in a private sale at a gun show.

I keep hearing this, but I've yet to see any supporting evidence. However, even if taken as true, how does this affect private gun sales at large. There are plenty of cash and carry states, and sales take place all the time in all sorts of places. Hell, even in california we can do cash and carry deals on certian firearms and don't need a gunshow to do it.

 

[publius42]

But private sales will still occur at gunshows. McCain has never advocated eliminating non-FFL sales of firearms

OK, so answer the question: who will do the background checks that McCain wants at gun shows?

I keep hearing this, but I've yet to see any supporting evidence. However, even if taken as true, how does this affect private gun sales at large.

Take another look at my post above. It has a recent quote from McCain saying he still supports bg checks for private sales at gun shows. What kind of evidence did you want? Video?

Are private sales at a gun show somehow special? More special than private sales across the street from a gun show, so that the law should be different inside the show vs across the street? What makes gun shows so special, so that we need a different law at the show than any place else? Are the vast majority of private sales to prohibited persons occurring at gun shows, causing major societal disruption, while only a tiny number occur in the rest of the world, causing no trouble? I think the answers to those questions show why letting the camel's nose under the tent on this issue endangers all other private sales.

 

[publius42]

Edited to add: And John McCain's voting record on gun legislation is better than Ron Paul's record. McCain voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The law which keeps gun manufacurers and people who sell guns from being sued out of business. Ron Paul voted against that Act. For some reason.

OK, if you want to bring up that vote again, then let's continue the discussion you started last summer. If memory serves correctly, you and Stage 2 both said that Dr. Ron Paul voted to protect doctors from similar lawsuits, but wouldn't protect firearms manufacturers. Other posts indicated otherwise, so I asked for the basis for that assertion. I'm still waiting.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Are private sales at a gun show somehow special?

No, and by this point, the Senator has unquestionably repeatedly had this explained to him. That he persists at wanting to close the "gun show loophole" anyway is, IMO, a really bad sign. Either he really does want to use this as an excuse to attack gun shows or private sales, OR his mind is too closed to listen to the explanations. Given McCain's rep, the latter can't be ruled out.

Either way, we know for a fact that he's willing to hold to gun controller talking points even in the face of evidence. Really bad sign, that sort of thing usually betrays somebody's core sympathies.

 

[benign.neglect]

I keep hearing this, but I've yet to see any supporting evidence.

Now that is a confusing statement. McCain is on the record saying he supports closing the gun show loop hole. He stated this in his NRA speech. Are you seriously trying to tell us you have never heard that???

However, even if taken as true, how does this affect private gun sales at large. There are plenty of cash and carry states, and sales take place all the time in all sorts of places.

I think that is everyone's point. Closing the gun show loophole as McCain wants to do will accomplish nothing. There are still plenty of ways to carry out a legal cash and carry sale. The law would only inconvenience law abiding gun owners by making them go through background checks. Criminals would just step outside in the parking lot or across the street to carry out their transactions. This kind of law should be opposed if for no other reason than it accomplishes nothing but inconvenience.

 

[Danzig]

What exactly is the "gunshow loophole"? It is the ability of private citizens (those who do not possess FFLs and those who do not engage in the regular sale of firearms) to buy sell and trade firearms amongst each other. These are NOT firearms dealers.

McCain want so subject such private transactions to the same background checks as sales between a dealer and buyer are subject to. The net effect is that these sales will not longer be private because an FFL holder will be REQUIRED to facilitate the background check.

This happened here in Colorado with the net result being that the State now classifies any firearms transaction at which three or more gun owners are present as a "gunshow" under the law. So...if I were to sell a firearm to a friend and his wife were present, if both of them currently own firearms, then under the law it is a "gunshow" and therefore the transaction is subject to the requirement of a background check. There are several more provisions. The following link speaks clearly about the Colorado law.

http://davekopel.com/2A/IP/gunshows2.htm

It has already happened here. It was too easy to turn private transactions into "gunshows" that are subject to the law.

 

[STAGE 2]

Take another look at my post above. It has a recent quote from McCain saying he still supports bg checks for private sales at gun shows. What kind of evidence did you want? Video?

Ok. Fair enough. My question then becomes, what is the 'loophole' that he wants to close. If its that you can't do cash and carry deals at a gun show, then what is stopping someone from walking out into the parking lot. I don't think McCain would promote such a nonsensical law.

The law would only inconvenience law abiding gun owners by making them go through background checks. Criminals would just step outside in the parking lot or across the street to carry out their transactions. This kind of law should be opposed if for no other reason than it accomplishes nothing but inconvenience.

Stepping across the street wouldnt be illegal since it wouldn't be at a gun show.

 

[benign.neglect]

That is the whole point. The law accomplishes nothing but inconvenience to law abiding gun owners. It is completely nonsensical, and McCain does support it. Why does McCain support this kind of nonsense?
If he wants to close the gun show loophole, maybe he will decide he wants to close the parking lot loophole, or newspaper ad loophole. That would make just as much sense.

Are you saying you support this law?

 

[publius42]

My question then becomes, what is the 'loophole' that he wants to close. If its that you can't do cash and carry deals at a gun show, then what is stopping someone from walking out into the parking lot. I don't think McCain would promote such a nonsensical law.

It's only nonsensical if you believe things won't go as they have gone in Colorado (see Danzig's post above). It makes no sense to ban ONLY the private sales at gun shows, if you're not going to ban ALL private sales everywhere. It starts to make sense if you view it as a step in that direction. Let's hope McCain only continues to promote nonsense, and doesn't start making sense on this issue.

 

[hammer4nc]

Ron Paul final push!

In the upcoming republican primaries on June 3...(South Dakota, New Mexico).

Will the "Ron Paul surge" wrap up the primary schedule on a high note; or will "party unity" take the day?

Any forum members from these states give a first person report?

 

[Al Norris]

I keep hearing this, but I've yet to see any supporting evidence. .... My question then becomes, what is the 'loophole' that he wants to close.

Surely you are aware of the claims/lies/statements made by the Brady Bunch, et al, on this "loophole?" This is the same "loophole" that McCain claims needs to be closed.

Surely your are aware of the vindictive nature of McCain and the reasons behind the McCain-Feingold bill (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002)?

The same reasons were behind the McCain-Lieberman bill (Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001).

McCain may have not gotten the latter to pass, but he certainly did the former. I believe he stills wants to "punish" those "gun nuts" that caused much of his distress in the 2000 campaign.

Even if, what I choose to call "vindictiveness," isn't the reason behind these legislative acts, then what has been given (by McCain) to believe that he has changed his mind on how to close the "loophole?" I posit, nothing has been given or shown.

Since many of us are aware that had S.890 been passed, it would have meant the end of gun shows, what are we to think, now that he has gone (once again) on record as saying that he endorses closing the "loophole?" To say that he does not mean to resurrect (in its main form) S. 890, is to ignore his past actions.

STAGE 2, if you are arguing simply for the argument, then you are intentionally being disingenuous.

 

[STAGE 2]

McCain may have not gotten the latter to pass, but he certainly did the former. I believe he stills wants to "punish" those "gun nuts" that caused much of his distress in the 2000 campaign.

I don't know Al. Since 01, nothing has come down the pipe, and he's been pandering to the NRA like its going out of style. That seems pretty odd for someone who wants to punish gun nuts.

Since many of us are aware that had S.890 been passed, it would have meant the end of gun shows, what are we to think, now that he has gone (once again) on record as saying that he endorses closing the "loophole?" To say that he does not mean to resurrect (in its main form) S. 890, is to ignore his past actions.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. California has the state equivalent of this bill and we have plenty of gun shows. Not being able to do a cash and carry transfer doesn't "kill" the gun show. Granted its an inconvenience, but its nothing that cant be easily solved across the street. Don't get me wrong, I completely disagree with such a law, but if we are going to look at this in the proper perspective then it needs an honest look.

STAGE 2, if you are arguing simply for the argument, then you are intentionally being disingenuous.

No, I'm trying to figure out what McCain is saying. Since he's been supportive of 'closing the loophole' but he's also stated that he opposes further regulation of private sales I'm wondering what the point is since the 'loophole' is much larger than the gunshow.

 

[benign.neglect]

but he's also stated that he opposes further regulation of private sales I'm wondering what the point is since the 'loophole' is much larger than the gunshow

No he hasn't said he opposes further regulation of private sales. His last comments to the NRA were that he opposed regulation of private transfers within families. He left the field wide open to regulate private transfers between non-family members. His quote: "I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as the transfer between a father and son or husband and wife." I am not sure what part of that you cannot understand.

Why are you willing to cut him so much slack for supporting a law that inconveniences the law-abiding, while doing nothing to reduce crime?

 

[publius42]

California has the state equivalent of this bill and we have plenty of gun shows. Not being able to do a cash and carry transfer doesn't "kill" the gun show.

It depends on how it is written. In the case of S890, if memory serves, it was written so that the promoter was liable to be punished if anyone at the show made a transaction w/o a background check. That would mean doing a bg check at the door of the show, or only allowing dealers to attend the show, either of which would be bad for business.

If California has it written so that the promoters are not in such danger, and so that people can just go across the street, it would really make no difference, other than setting a precedent for the regulation of private sales.

At every gun show I've attended, there have been a horde of gun dealers and a few vendors of other products and maybe a few guys hawking a gun or two privately. The show would be hardly any different without those few guys. The fact that they can just sell those guns in their next garage sale, or anywhere else, means the restriction on our freedom is not too burdensome, if there were any plausible reason for it. There is not, unless you count setting a precedent for the regulation of other private sales.