NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain

Chicago Tribune ^ | 5/13/08 | Bruce Shreiner

[stevio]

Upside down world right now.

[VeniVidiVici]

I want to keep firearms out of the hands of felons, illegal aliens period!

I think all of us do. But why put the onus on the seller? It's the "illegal" and/or "felon" that are breaking the law when buying a gun.

And I think very, very few of us would sell to a guy that:

1.Can't speak English
2.Looks like a 'banger

[Niteranger68]

No, but try taking a car dealer's demo for a ride without showing your driver's license. So, essentially the dealership is checking your record because, if you had a bad one, you wouldn't have a license would you?

You are assuming, incorrectly, that everyone who buys a car goes for a test drive first. Bottom line....there's no reason for the seller to be responsible for the buyer...is there???

And yes....you can have a bad driving record and still have a license.

[SJackson]

How about the fact that a felon would be breaking the law by having a firearm and an illegal shouldn't be here anyway? At some point, people should be responsible for their own actions.

No one has noted that in general this should be a state rather than a federal issue. The only federal role should revolve around protecting rights.

Actually sellers are responsible for their actions. If someone knowingly sells a firearm to a felon, they'll be held civilly liable, and in many (most?) state have violated the law themselves. In Illinois, which has some of the most restrictive laws, a private seller is essentially held to the same standards as a dealer, except for the check. The seller and buyer must have a FOID and a record including the serial number must be created and retained. There's no need for additional laws, particularly at the federal level.

[Clump]

Background checks are bad because; the system in place does little to nothing to actually reduce or prevent crime (even according to federal studies done to examine the effects of the Brady law); it sets in place a system that can easily be used as a way to prevent ever increasing classes of people (determined by the U.S Congress) from owning firearms (don't be surprised when a traffic ticket conviction from 1992 can be used as grounds for disqualification); it creates another underground market (and therefore gang turf) for criminals to prosper from the sale of guns to known criminals, just like drug laws do; it treats the 2nd Amendment like a privilege rather than a right (by creating hoops to jump through) analogous to conducting background checks before we walk into church to exercise our right to the "free exercise of religion"; it further erodes the Constitutional right by legitimizing serious government regulation of what is supposed to be a fundamental right; it is also defacto registration that could be used by a hostile administration bent on harassing gun shops (thereby depriving citizens the opportunity to acquire arms) or even gun owners themselves; NUMBER 1 PROBLEM THOUGH- little by little they will whittle the number of gun owners down by incremental measures like this, and when the "armed" populace has been sufficiently disarmed, they WILL come for them. It is the only thing standing between them and unbridled governmental power.

We cannot allow fundamental rights to be regulated such that we go from being governed to being ruled. The best government is the one that has a healthy fear of its subjects. The worst government is the one that subjects are fearful of, and are helpless to do anything about.

Sorry if this seams paranoid, but the only way to achieve tyranny is by incremental (reasonable) regulation of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" that is so important to restraining an ever increasingly unrestrained government.

I have been quite secure under Bush, but I am very concerned about where we could go in an Obama administration. He is the reason rights must be deemed fundamental. That way they can't be disregarded when the public elects a nut to the WH.

No, I don't think he will win. But the very possibility of it is enough to make me resist government regulation in this area.

The question should not be "why we are against background checks?", but what good will it do to implement them? Also, what harm can come from regulating such an important right? Why limit the right when the benefits are negligible to nonexistent? All big picture stuff. Freedom and the Republic as we know it is just too important to take a chance with. I would rather deal with the occasional nuts that invariably come out in society than deal with being treated like a nut for wanting to have the means to protect my family from such a nut.

[Niteranger68]

No one has noted that in general this should be a state rather than a federal issue. The only federal role should revolve around protecting rights. Actually sellers are responsible for their actions. If someone knowingly sells a firearm to a felon, they'll be held civilly liable, and in many (most?) state have violated the law themselves. In Illinois, which has some of the most restrictive laws, a private seller is essentially held to the same standards as a dealer, except for the check. The seller and buyer must have a FOID and a record including the serial number must be created and retained. There's no need for additional laws, particularly at the federal level.

I'm not sure if you are looking for a comment back or not. Are you stating how the law is handled or how you think it should be handled? Do you agree with background checks on individual (non-FFL) sales?

It's true that sellers are responsible for their actions, but should they be responsible for the actions of others? I would say absolutely not. And of course selling a firearm to a known felon should be a crime, but if they are not known to be a felon, the seller should be free and clear.

[Niteranger68]

Fantastic articulation! +1!

[SJackson]

I'm not sure if you are looking for a comment back or not. Are you stating how the law is handled or how you think it should be handled? Do you agree with background checks on individual (non-FFL) sales? …It's true that sellers are responsible for their actions, but should they be responsible for the actions of others? I would say absolutely not. And of course selling a firearm to a known felon should be a crime, but if they are not known to be a felon, the seller should be free and clear.

Essentially that’s how it’s handled now, which is why additional legislation isn’t needed, particularly on a federal level. The vast majority of sales at shows are by dealers, thus undergo checks already. There is no “gun show loophole”. And to my knowledge there is no problem associated with legitimate private sales. And without further legislation sellers knowingly selling to someone barred from gun ownership is already liable if the gun is used in a crime. Most legislation in this area isn’t about remedying a problem, none exists, rather about putting another layer of regulation on gunowners. Regarding private sales, if they’re private, I don’t see any need for a check, and for the “dealer” masquerading under the private sale exemption, he’s already violating the law.

[Niteranger68]

OK. We’re pointing in the same general direction.

[Clump]

Fantastic articulation! +1!

Thanks for the compliment. A Judge this morning told me "based on your compelling argument I will find . . ." in my favor. Of course he was being sarcastic. He and everyone else in the courtroom (including me) snickered as he said it because I had no opponent present, and therefore did not spend much effort in blathering on and on in a motion for summary judgment. I kind of yawned through a very brief and unenergetic "argument", but hey, isn't winning enough?

I guess that is how I feel about McCain these days. I will vote for him because I can't complain about the other person if I don't.

[Niteranger68]

Glad that we’re on the same side!

[fortheDeclaration]

The question should not be "why we are against background checks?", but what good will it do to implement them?

Exactly!

Criminals are always going find ways to get guns.

[wtr100]

as bad as Mc Cain is imagine what H will be like!

http://wtr100.bravehost.com/promo_target_15_yards_v3.pdf