Posted on 10/19/2009 8:45:34 AM PDT by Still Thinking
For shock value, they may not rank with the videos released last month showing ACORN workers giving tax advice to a couple of undercover investigators posing as a prostitute and her pimp. But New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's covert recordings of what really goes on at gun shows are appalling nonetheless.
Gun shows are thought to be a key supplier of guns used in crimes, though how big a role they play is the subject of heated debate. To understand why they're considered a problem, one first has to understand the contorted nature of federal gun laws. New-gun retailers are closely regulated, with laws forcing them to obtain licenses, keep transaction records so that guns used in crimes can be traced, and perform background checks on buyers to ensure they aren't legally barred from owning guns. Convicted felons, drug addicts, the mentally ill and illegal immigrants are among those who fall into that category. Meanwhile, nonprofessional used-gun traders are subject to none of those requirements, although even resellers are forbidden from transactions in which they know the buyer couldn't pass a background check (something Bloomberg's investigators caught on tape repeatedly).
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Why don’t we crack down on drug smugglers and drug dealers first, and after we get that working, then maybe we can crack down on junk lawsuits.
I don’t accept the premise that allowing me to sell my legal property has any effect on crime. If I sell a car to a human smuggle am I responsible if the thief uses the car in a smuggling ring?
Liberals, raise taxes, fund welfare and restrict guns. Guns are at the base of your freedoms. Why give that up.
I’m more afraid of Barack Obama and his government czars and appointees than I am of criminals, the “mentally ill” and illegal aliens.
Criminals and nut cases you can deal with on a one to one basis, but the government is everywhere 24/7 and on your case all the time.
Obama is the biggest criminal in our history. He and his minions are the ones I’m really afraid of.
An attack on private property.
Your post confuses me.
This article highlights the need to rescind all laws pertaining to gun ownership and sale/transfer. The only crime involving a gun should be an existing crime aided by the use of a gun.
Only committing a crime should be a crime. Gun laws should be rescinded.
Right and wrong is measured by your behavior and should not be consigned to whether or not you own or are holding on your person a gun.
“I’m more afraid of Barack Obama and his government czars and appointees than I am of criminals, the ‘mentally ill’ and illegal aliens.”
But, you’ve just described the Obama administration.
EXACTLY.
And if EVERY STATE IN THE UNION had gun show laws like California, that ELSEWHERE would be MEXICO, HONDURAS, etc. and the ONLY people getting guns THEN would BE THE CRIMINALS because Lousenberg, Bloomberg, et al DO NOT BELIEVE CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS and they would add THIS law to the ALREADY ONEROUS Federal and State regulations to effectuate that end.
I’m not even sure I trust the government to crack down on drug use. They just go to Congress and say “We need to bring back the rack and the Pear of Anguish to wage the war on drugs. We’re sure we’ll never need to use them for other crimes and we promise not to use them on terrorist detainees!”, then as soon as they get the powers they use them on the rest of us.
“Meanwhile, nonprofessional used-gun traders are subject to none of those requirements,”
They mean private sales between individuals, here. By including the term nonprofessional, they exclude FFLs. All FFLs must transact each sale/purchase the same way, with paperwork, whether the firearm is new or not. In most states, there is a limit to how many firearms one can sell before that individual becomes a “professional”, and maybe a fed requirement I’ve forgotten.
A “nonprofessional”, which covers just about anyone not an FFL holder, can give away a firearm to anyone with no Fed involvement (though many states regulate private sales with record keeping and permits).
They want to go after private sales and especially inheritance of firearms. Once all transactions go through government, true enforcement of ownership begins.
An obvious and rational truth.
But since “obvious”, “rational” and “truth” are alien to most politicians, it will never happen and people are too stupid to realize that these laws effect only them and not the crimianls.
No, more fundamentally, it would restrict my ability to sell my property without government intervention, or to purchase said property of another without government intervention. Sounds like an infringement to me.
...their intent is solely to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals.
Hmmmm. Think maybe thieves, robbers, and others of criminal ilk might not get their arms the old fashioned way--STEAL THEM?
When the 4473 is filled out and the NICS check goes through, the only 'guarantee' we have that the data isn't being filed in a database is the word of politicians.
The same larcenous bastards who can at will and under force of arms remove an increasing amount of money from the public coffers and use it to purchase favors, enrich their families, and attract kickbacks and bribes while evading prosecution for their acts by using their position to garner de facto immunity from prosecution.
We're supposed to believe them?
Though the gun lobby raises a hue and cry whenever such proposals arise, it has yet to explain why it wants to make it easy for murderers, armed robbers and other criminals to obtain the tools of their trade.
Why don't you ask the judges who let these same multiple offenders and others go with a slap on the wrist? Instead, the apparent gambit is to make criminals of the generally law-abiding in an effort to deflect attention from the abject failure of the New York authorities to handle their own crime problem.
I suggest to Mr. Bloomberg, that if we wanted to live in New York, either the city or the state, we would.
In the absence of a stampede to reside within those borders, I'd say we have, for the most part decided not to live under the onerous laws there, and not of criminal intent, but desire to remain as free as possible.
I find it fascinating that private investigators can so freely cross state lines to suborn felonies, have the evidence recorded, and not be subject to prosecution, much less the ringleader of the entire operation, Mr. Bloomberg himself.
This is exactly how it is in the peoples' republic of California. A firearm is "registered" in your name and remains so until transferred to a buyer.
Nobody in their right mind would sell a gun to somebody else without going through the paperwork because, like a vehicle, if it is misused it will come back to you.
If someone wants a gun they will get a gun. The only variable is price.
That's not quite how it goes down. The buyer implies that he or she might not qualify, not that they're a felon or mental patient. At that point it's the private seller's judgment call. What Bloomberg's "investigators" found themselves able to do was talk a seller into the deal where there was a carefully-stated element of doubt.
This isn't, as I've stated before, a move to make gun shows safer. It's a move to require all private purchases to undergo background checks, which records constitute an illegal back-door registration. These people know what they're doing and they don't mind lying to get what they want.
I know. This "editorial" is so full of lies, exaggerations, omissions, and general contempt for the value of liberty for liberty's sake it made me very angry and almost sick to have to read it. Still, I thought it should be posted.
Didn't most of all that come along in 1968?
And 1934.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.