Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, November 22, 2010

I rest my case

The truth is out about how the U.S. is providing the Mexican drug cartel with many of their guns. But the gun lobby is in total denial about the problem. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why. It just makes no sense at all to allow guns to be sold without background checks in border states, or any state for that matter. But yet, it continues to happen at gun show after gun show. I keep writing about hidden camera videos showing how private sellers sell guns to just anyone with not only no background check but without even asking for or demanding identification in the form of a driver's license and/or proof of citizenship. Now never mind that in Arizona, proof of citizenship is now being demanded of "Mexican" looking people for other purposes. But watch this video clip of an Arizona T.V. station asking a Republican Arizona politician about why proof of citizenship is not required for gun sales. Notice that he denies that identification and background checks are not required at gun shows. Doesn't he even know the laws in his own state? Doesn't he realize that it is common practice for private sellers at gun shows to sell guns with no background checks and no identification? The reporter argues back that, indeed, background checks and identification are not required for private sellers. No matter. The truth isn't important apparently. And now we have one more hidden camera video from a gun show. This one shows a sale between a man speaking Spanish and a private seller at a gun show. Since there were cars in the parking lot with Mexican license plates, one can surmise that there are non-citizens buying guns at this gun show.

I am wondering how much more proof is needed. I am also wondering why the NRA and its' minions deny so vociferously that what is plainly happening isn't. What is this all about anyway? For one thing, it's total hypocrisy. For another, it's dangerous and leading to the deaths of many innocent people. And for the third, it is ludicrous and nonsensical. It's time to stop this and move to do the right thing in the name of public safety and common sense.

59 comments:

  1. I'm sure that some small fraction of illegal guns are getting to Mexico via US gun shows and dealers. However, the majority of the drug guns aren't coming from here:

    These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.

    Mexican gun laws are strict, but I'm told largely unenforced-it is my understanding that if a Mexican citizen is caught, the gun is confiscated, but no charges are usually filed.

    It would make no sense to me that experienced international smugglers would pay inflated US retail prices for the neutered semiautomatic AK-47 style guns available here, when they can get full auto for less money. My guess is that the Mexicans at gun shows are desperate ordinary citizens not associated with the gun trade looking for self-defense weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe because the cartels are using machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers and you can't buy machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers in private sales at US gun shows or anywhere else? Nor in regular FFL transactions at gun shows or anywhere else.

    Quite simply, the cartels aren't using the kinds of firearms that are common in the US. I've never seen a spread by the Mexican government of seized weapons that looks like the kind of armament you'd see at gun shows.

    And what makes you think a criminal organization who's business is basically smuggling contraband already, isn't going to be able to get guns no matter what you do? These aren't petty criminals. They are going to have guns, grenades, rockets and machine guns. There's no change in US laws that's going to make this bloodshed stop in Mexico. In fact, you take away guns on this side of the border the violence will probably just spread here, as you will leave the folks who live on the border defenseless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course we don't care. Why should we care if Mexico's citizens are subjects of the State?

    If Mexico's citizens could not own books, would that mean we in the USA would have to provide ID to buy a book? Just in case it might be smuggled?

    Ludicrous.

    Criminals break stupid laws. What a concept.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, indeed, japete. This is the first thing that needs to change. Why it's so difficult is testament to the power of the NRA and the self-serving gun owners of America. It also puts a spotlight on the apathy of the non-gun people and the tens-of-millions who own a gun or two but are reasonable enough to agree with the gun control argument if they'd only think about it. Apathy, that's our enemy. And videos like this and blogs like yours address that problem head-on. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. " Why should we care if Mexico's citizens are subjects of the State" Wow- are you sure you want to say that publicly?

    ReplyDelete
  6. You're honing in on an omission. You MUST be a resident of the State in order to purchase a firearm, REGARDLESS of where you're buying it. How do you verify that the person you're selling to is a resident? Ask for ID! I challenge you to go to a Gun Show and attempt to buy a firearm without an ID.
    Just as a side note, Interstate trafficking in firearms without a valid Federal Firearms License (FFL) is already against the law! All you're calling for is to make it MORE illegal.
    As to the Mexican problem, why is there no call for sealing the border? NO call for more vigorous checkpoints at the border? Don't forget, we're Mexico's largest market for their ILLEGAL goods as well coming back in this direction (and in case you don't get the innuendo, that would be DRUGS). I would argue that drugs destroy far more lives than firearms do in the US. Drugs must not be a concern of yours.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am pretty sure I just did.

    Mexico is a sovereign nation, and should deal with its own problems. Just because we share a border does not mean I should care about their public policy. It really matters to me as much as the public policy of Brazil, New Zealand or Mongolia.

    I make no concessions of our rights for the sake of another nation because of geography.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pat, Pat, Pat, " You MUST be a resident of the State in order to purchase a firearm, REGARDLESS of where you're buying it. How do you verify that the person you're selling to is a resident? Ask for ID! I challenge you to go to a Gun Show and attempt to buy a firearm without an ID." Apparently you have missed all the stuff on my blog before this post. In all of the hidden camera videos, private sellers are shown selling guns to people asking for no ID or asking for it and when the person says they don't have one on them, the dealer just says- fine- out the door, that's good. Even in Minnesota, this was the case on the hidden camera video. I know it's against the law. That's the point!! If background checks were required by all sellers, we would be able to stop this kind of junk. As to Mexico, President Obama has done a better job of "sealing" the borders than his predecessor but that is not well recognized by those who don't want to believe that he has done anything right. Hmmm- as to drugs destroying more lives than firearms- in a sense, yes. But mostly those who are shot, die or have permanent life long physical injuries. I would venture to guess that is considered by most to be worse. Gun homicides and gun deaths fall further toward the top of homicide, accidental, suicide and viiolent deaths than do drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That is where we do need to differ. If something our country is doing is causing people to lose their lives, we need to change what we are doing. We would expect no less from other countries if the shoe were on the other foot.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yep. We differ.

    I completely disagree with reducing freedom in our country, so another country can subjugate its citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "If something our country is doing is causing people to lose their lives, we need to change what we are doing."

    If another country wishes to violate the rights of its subjects, we are under no obligation to either help them or to follow their lead.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Joan,

    If something our country is doing is causing people to lose their lives, we need to change what we are doing.

    We are doing something that is causing people to loose their lives.

    We are keeping them from being able to effectively defend themselves with firearms.

    You and those like you who are supporting gun control laws are driving up the cost to purchase a firearm.

    Fewer people owning a firearm means that more people lack the means of fighting off physical violence -- violence that is killing them.
    Remember that other 30 something percent of homicides not involving firearms?

    You and people like you are making it more difficult for people to obtain ammunition so they can practice using their firearms.

    Mishandling firearms results in accidental deaths -- your fault and deaths due to people not being able to effectively defend themselves.

    You and people like you are making it difficult for people to freely exercise their rights to bear arms.

    Since you oppose concealed and open carrying of firearms, more people are murdered on the streets because they can not effectively defend themselves.

    We do need to change what we are doing and the evidence -- continuing decline in homicide rate while gun ownership rates increase, continuing decline in violent crime while the number of people carrying concealed increases -- shows that the pro-rights actions are working and your actions aren't

    ReplyDelete
  13. "If something our country is doing is causing people to lose their lives, we need to change what we are doing. We would expect no less from other countries if the shoe were on the other foot"

    PS - I am curious as to what freedom granted in other countries could ever cost the lives of people in the USA?

    I have never felt threatened by the individual rights of another nation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If something our country is doing is causing people to lose their lives, we need to change what we are doing.

    That something is the drug war. If we were to eliminate the second amendment and all legal US ownership of guns, it would make no difference to Mexico's drug gang problem--they would still have just as many guns.

    If however we were to increase freedom, and legalize drugs (freedom includes being free to do stupid things) the quality of life in Mexico would be increased immensely.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You guys are amazing. You can't say that Mexico would have just as many guns. You have no way of proving that. That is totally an opinion unfounded in fact.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Joan

    You can't say that Mexico would have just as many guns

    Every go to your favorite store and find they are out of your favorite -food/clothing/decorative item/insert any other item here?

    What did you do? You went to another store that had that product and purchased it, didn't you?

    Guess what? It isn't an opinion unfounded in fact. At one point in time, heroin and morphine were legal products as was marijuana.

    When people couldn't get them from one source (laws changed and they were required to quit selling those products), the people simply found another source -- drug cartels.

    Mexico does get firearms from the United States but the quantity is low. Given the number of countries -- actual legitimate governments willing to sell fully automatic weapons to anyone with cash, do you honestly think that the Mexican drug cartels wouldn't simply find another source?

    ReplyDelete
  17. “You can't say that Mexico would have just as many guns. You have no way of proving that.”

    You are committing the “everything revolves around me” logical fallacy. You imagine that the world responds to your wants and needs. It does not. Crime generally revolves around drugs. Drugs are illegal and therefore valuable. Drugs are illegal, and therefore drug dealers cannot ask the legitimate government to enforce their contracts. (Contracts as in, you give me x, I pay you $y)

    What you end up with is a vast unregulated, unpoliced market that generates enormous amounts of money. Who will get all this money? The one with the will to murder people to keep it. If there were no drug dealers and suppliers (say if all drugs were sold over the counter at CVS pharmacy) then there would be no reason for drug traffickers to arm themselves against their competitors. Both the Teamsters and the Longshoreman’s unions have colorful reputations, but when’s the last time you heard of them having a war against each other?

    The violence in Mexico, and most of the violence in the US is driven by the need to protect the vast wealth generated by the distribution of drugs. If someone was to have the political will to bring that whole system into the legal realm, almost all of the violence, gun or otherwise, would go away. Corporate America doesn’t have street wars to settle disputes. They send lawyers. It’s not much cheaper, but much more socially acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Joan, Joan, Joan...(since you're going to be belittling). I've seen the Brady groups' videos, I've also seen plenty that show sellers turning down transactions as well. It doesn't matter how many times you make something illegal; someone will always find a way to break the law and commit a crime. Its, unfortunately, human nature. You seem to think that all people are inherently good -- and that there will never be a percentage of the population that will break the law. Thats wishful thinking...

    The problem with your side of the argument is that you'll never be happy. If today, Congress declared all handguns and semi-automatic rifles illegal. You'd sue for my shotgun as well. Your side whittles away our rights and privileges little bit by little bit until they can only be afforded by the affluent (case in point, MN's Carry Permit cost me ~$250, not including a weapon, a safe, or ammunition on top of that). This is bordering on something like a poll-tax to exercise our constitutionally protected rights, and should be declared illegal.

    This is why there is such widespread support for the 2nd amendment -- and the beauty of it is -- with the Internet and 24hr news, people can get the facts for themselves, rather than relying on Brady hyperbole and conjecture!

    ReplyDelete
  19. On the Mexican firearm fiesta - Fox News, April 2: "Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    You can't buy fully automatic weapons in the US cheaply or easily, you can't buy Rocket Propelled Grenades at all. The majority of Mexican illegal weapons aren't coming from the US. I call for an immediate tightening of the border and hiring of additional ICE personnel to reinforce our southern border -- and also recommend increasing the DEA's budget exponentially to continue to war on drugs so that there will be no demand.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The facts are that the guns most popular among drug lords, the guns most commonly recovered are effectively unavailable in the US.

    Do yo honestly believe that smugglers would pay more for a US-legal semiautomatic than they would for a full-auto from somewhere else?

    ReplyDelete
  21. " You are committing the “everything revolves around me” logical fallacy. You imagine that the world responds to your wants and needs. It does not. Crime generally revolves around drugs. Drugs are illegal and therefore valuable. Drugs are illegal, and therefore drug dealers cannot ask the legitimate government to enforce their contracts. (Contracts as in, you give me x, I pay you $y) " Huh? Don't think you proved a point.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not true, of course. Mexico gets the majority of its' guns from the U.S. As to other stores, I wonder what other stores Mexican drug dealers would go to if the U.S. cracked down on gun running, and background checks? I suppose to the South. Mexico's own gun laws are very strict. Why should we make it easy for them?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Of course, Pat- you guys NEVER belittle me. "The problem with your side of the argument is that you'll never be happy. If today, Congress declared all handguns and semi-automatic rifles illegal. You'd sue for my shotgun as well" Not true. Will your side ever be happy with what you now have?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I thought you guys told me you couldn't buy fully auto. weapons in the U.S. except by getting a license. That isn't easy, I suppose. Are there some out there in the illegal market? And, by the way, I'm glad to hear that you paid a good fee for your permit to carry. It is an awesome responsibility to carry a gun around. The paperwork is complicated and time-consuming. My sheriff tells me that he has stacks of applications on his desk requiring hinm to work many hours of over time.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Fully Automatic Weapons: Prohibitively expensive ($10k+, $20k+), not commonly available (since anything made after 1986 is prohibited), require an extensive background check, ATF tax stamp, and permission from chief of local law enforcement. Minnesotans aren't allowed to own anything thats not a "Curio or Relic" either....meaning antiques. Legally obtained fully automatic weapons are a non-issue in crime! I'll find the stats, but its something on the order of 1 crime in 10 years.

    DID you see the quote from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Matt Allen? The actual number of weapons confiscated from Drug Cartels in Mexico isn't a known number. The accounting problem stems from the fact that the ATF can't trace weapons without a serial # -- so Mexican authorities don't submit weapons without serial numbers for tracing -- this eliminates records keeping on anything NOT coming from the US -- and provides false numbers.
    With all the corrupt law-enforcement and government officials in Mexico, its also hard to GET them to keep an accurate count of anything.
    Seal the border!

    ReplyDelete
  26. $250 to exercise a constitutional right in MN equates to a violation of my rights as a US citizen.
    The paperwork is NOT difficult or time-consuming -- my Sheriff (Dakota County), and others (Hennepin, Sherburne, Washington) have explained to me that it takes ~10 minutes per applicant and doesn't "cost" anywhere near the $100 per permit they collect - in fact, you can go out to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension's website and see their "actual" costs an monies collected. Add that to the $150 for taking a class to learn things I already knew (thanks to the DNR Firearms Safety course - ALSO required in Minnesota for hunters)...that makes $250 before I even start to think about purchasing a weapon, ammo or safe storage -- let alone PRACTICING with it safely at a range (another $15-25 per session).
    Do you see a pattern here? The poor are not being given an opportunity here -- this has somehow become a privilege of the well-off. That has to change - and will hopefully in the coming years!

    ReplyDelete
  27. One county is not the same as another. Are you saying that my Sheriff is lying or doesn't know what he's talking about? I, too, have talked to him many times about this. If the poor can afford to buy an expensive gun, I am not too worried about them paying money for a license.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Japete, I am a little disappointed in that we seemed to make headway the last time we were discussing the “gunshow loophole”, but here you have reverted back into focusing on gunshows and claiming the NRA and other 2nd amendment supporters fight common sense. Once again, there are many gun owners who support background checks so long as private sales are preserved. It is the private sales that those of us with that opinion are trying to preserve- not an absence of background checks. You seemed very interested in gaining some gun owner support for this common ground last time. What happened? This proposal would cover far more sales than “closing the gunshow loophole” would.

    Second, if you are going to bring Mexico into this, you have to at least acknowledge their use of automatic weapons, grenades, and rocket launchers. These are not the type of weapons that are on our streets.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The county I live in (Lancaster County, PA) takes about 15 min to process the application, run the background check, and print the plastic ID card. Only costs $20 or so too. It's faster than getting my driver's license renewed. Good service I'd say.

    "If the poor can afford to buy an expensive gun, I am not too worried about them paying money for a license."

    Why shouldn't the poor be able to defend themselves too? Are only rich people's lives important? This is a serious question, what do you mean by that exactly? You can get a small pistol for about as much as that licence fee ($200-300).

    ReplyDelete
  30. "You guys are amazing. You can't say that Mexico would have just as many guns. You have no way of proving that. That is totally an opinion unfounded in fact."

    I don't believe anyone disputes that firearms from the United States end up in Mexico. The dispute is the scale of the problem, and to what extent guns from the United States are being used to arm the cartels. Also at dispute is what can be done to stop it.

    There are machine guns on the black market in the United States, just like there are drugs on the black market. But the fact is we have no idea where most of the guns the cartels are using come from because the Mexican government isn't tracing most of them. It would seem highly unlikely machine guns, grenades or rocket launchers come from the US. Far more likely they were stolen from the Mexican Military, or smuggled from Central America. The number of full auto AK-47s that are in this country legally (as opposed to being smuggled in) is quite small.

    It also seems highly unlikely you're going to successfully disarm violent criminal organizations who deal in contraband as their core business. They will get guns no matter what laws you pass. Why? Because the smuggle dope! How hard is it to smuggle guns too? Especially when there are parts of Africa and Asia you can buy crates of AK-47s for next to nothing, cash and carry.

    ReplyDelete
  31. One county is not the same as another. Are you saying that my Sheriff is lying or doesn't know what he's talking about?

    Either that, or he is an inefficient administrator, or you misunderstood what he said. Ohio is $55, Pennsylvania nonresident is $20, both for 5 years--and several Pennsylvania counties actively court nonresidents at that price. Indiana is $100--for a lifetime license. New Hampshire is still $20 for a resident license, although they upped their nonresident to $100 shortly before I was due to renew, as a revenue generating measure.

    If the poor can afford to buy an expensive gun, I am not too worried about them paying money for a license.

    Let them eat cake.

    Guns don't have to be as expensive as they are--this is a result of gun controllers renaming 'guns that poor people can afford', calling them 'Saturday Night Specials" and banning imports.

    Pat--there were no crimes committed with legally owned machine guns for the first 50 years of the NFA, then there were 2 in the next 20 years.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "It is the private sales that those of us with that opinion are trying to preserve- not an absence of background checks." You can preserve private sales and still have background checks. I have always said that. Don't put words into my mouth. I acknowledge grenades, rocket launchers, etc. So now what? If I acknowledge those, what difference does it make to you?

    ReplyDelete
  33. It's pretty interesting to me that you all are now supporting the rights of poor people to own guns and buy permits. I am simply saying, as you know by what I wrote, that guns are expensive. Not too many poor people can afford guns and they probably, indeed, do not have them unless they are street guns that are stolen, etc. So if you want to have a permit with that gun that cost a couple hundred, you will just have to come up with the money for a permit. If you all think that the price of a permit is going down, I think you will be fighting a losing battle. All I know is what my local Sheriff tells me. If it's different from your experience, that's not my fault. It is what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sevesteen- thank you. These are the first sensible words I've read from all of you commenters out there. Give me a break. I'm getting tired just reading all of this stuff and responding. No wonder the Brady Campaign quit publishing posts. It is almost impossible to publish them, respond and then respond to the responses. I'll be the gun guys don't get this on their blogs because everyone responding agrees with them. But when one of us "anti-gunners" writes- you all feel free to pepper the blogger with your comments. It's enough to wear out a reasonable person.

    ReplyDelete
  35. No- he's efficient enough. He's the Sheriff of a very large geographical county with lots of permit applications and he's underfunded.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Almost every manager or executive thinks he is underfunded, and the few that don't think that won't admit it.

    Lots of licenses would mean more revenue-If $100 per license isn't enough, then by definition he isn't efficient--there are counties I am aware of (admittedly not in Minnesota) that welcome the revenue generated at $20 per license.

    ReplyDelete
  37. japete said...
    It's pretty interesting to me that you all are now supporting the rights of poor people to own guns and buy permits.

    I support the rights of ALL people. You should, too.

    japete said...
    I am simply saying, as you know by what I wrote, that guns are expensive.

    Made even more so by high-priced permits and other "taxes", er, fees. And there a many pistols and small caliber arms that fall under the $200 range. It's sad when fees and licensing cost more than self-defense.

    japete said...
    You guys are amazing. You can't say that Mexico would have just as many guns. You have no way of proving that. That is totally an opinion unfounded in fact.

    But it's okay for you to post your opinions (or the opinions of others) and refer to them as fact.

    That's the beauty of having your own blog, or statistics; tweak it/them the way you want to make it/them say what you want. I have no problem whatsoever with that, as long as it doesn't intrude upon my Constitutional rights...which is exactly what you want it to do.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "You can preserve private sales and still have background checks. I have always said that."

    Yes. But all of the proposals to "close the gun show loophole" that have been brought forward in Congress would have either eliminated private sales or effectively eliminated gun shows entirely, save for the first bill, back in the 90's, after the NRA's proposed amendment was adopted.

    The bill as amended would have provided for background checks on all sales at gun shows, without eliminating private sales. It would have accomplished all that the gun-control organizations claimed they wanted, without banning private sales, and without increasing costs or liabilities for gun shows so significantly as to drive them out of business.

    Of course, the gun-control organizations screamed bloody murder, and Clinton vetoed it.

    Still, it was an instructive moment. They claim they want background checks, and introduce a bill that would have effectively eliminated gun shows. We amend it to provide for background checks, without eliminating gun shows, and they oppose it. Why? The only explanation is that the background checks are only an extraneous issue, that the closing down of gun shows entirely is what they are after, and the background checks is useful to them only as a means to that end.

    After all, they could have had background checks at gun shows 15 years ago, if that had been what they were really after. But that's not what they really want.

    ReplyDelete
  39. " losing down of gun shows entirely is what they are after, and the background checks is useful to them only as a means to that end." This is not our intent and the current bills in the House and Senate do nothing to eliminate gun shows. I need to do further checking on the bill to which you are referring. I was not involved with this issue back then.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "This is not our intent ..."

    That may not be your intent, but it is clearly the intent of the leaders of the primary gun control advocacy groups.

    "and the current bills in the House and Senate do nothing to eliminate gun shows."

    S.843 would do exactly that. Though it doesn't say so explicitly.

    It defines "vendor" so as to include everyone who walks onto the premises, regardless of whether they have any contractual arrangement with the operator.

    If someone walks in off the street, meets someone at the event, and then later transfers a gun to him - even if the transfer happens at some other place and time - the operator becomes criminally liable for having failed to have register a "vendor".

    Which means that the operator will be required to maintain a registry of every attendee, simply to avoid the liability.

    And the existence of that registry will place every attendee at risk of being prosecuted for having engaged in a private sale, some part of which occurred at the gun show, if he ever transfers a firearm to some other attendee of the show - even if he was unaware that the transferee was present.

    The simple truth is almost nobody would attend a gun show operating under these rules. It would, despite your protestations, drive gun shows out of business.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Selected bits from the current text of the bill at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s843/text

    "The term ‘gun show vendor’ means any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges 1 or more firearms at a gun show, regardless of whether or not the person arranges with the gun show promoter for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange 1 or more firearms.’."


    "(b) Responsibilities of Gun Show Promoters- It shall be unlawful for any person to organize, plan, promote, or operate a gun show unless that person--
    ‘(1) before commencement of the gun show, verifies the identity of each gun show vendor participating in the gun show by examining a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(3)) of the vendor containing a photograph of the vendor;
    ‘(2) before commencement of the gun show, requires each gun show vendor to sign--
    ‘(A) a ledger with identifying information concerning the vendor; and
    ‘(B) a notice advising the vendor of the obligations of the vendor under this chapter;"


    Based on these sections, how does the promoter avoid a felony conviction if I go to his show claiming to be an attendee, but sell a gun against his rules?

    ReplyDelete
  42. japete, I'd like to offer an observation. Because you're being ganged up on, I sometimes can't tell which comment you're responsing to.

    If that last "nonsense" was directed to jdege, I agree with you completely. He said, referring to the goal of closing all gun shows, "it is clearly the intent of the leaders of the primary gun control advocacy groups."

    He couldn't know that unless he's a mind reader. If he's deducing it from facts and statments, etc., I'd say he's not very accomplished at the art of deduction. In other words, "nonsense."

    The major gun control groups' intent is exactly what they say it is, to reduce gun violence. It's paranoia and bias that cause people to not believe that.

    ReplyDelete
  43. One more bit:

    (c) Responsibilities of Transferors Other Than Licensees-

    (1) IN GENERAL- If any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to another person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless the firearm is transferred through a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer in accordance with subsection (e).


    What is a "part" of a firearm transaction? If you see talk to someone, and mention that you have a gun for sale, while at a gun show, has a part of the transaction occurred at the gun show, even though the transfer and the payment occurred somewhere else? The bill doesn't define "part", but this seems to be its intent.

    If I attend a gun show, and later sell a gun to someone who also attended the gun show, how do I prove that "part of the transaction" didn't occur at the gun show?

    ReplyDelete
  44. "The major gun control groups' intent is exactly what they say it is, to reduce gun violence."

    That the major gun control groups rely on deception and misdirection as a primary tactic is not paranoia, it's been clearly stated by their leadership on a number of occasions.

    That their ultimate goal is to eliminate private gun ownership in its entirety, and that their advocacy for incremental restrictions is a means towards that end has not been hidden, they've openly stated as much.

    So yes, gun owners believe they have ulterior motives - because they have explicitly said that they have ulterior motives.

    Still, as I said, they could have had a federal law mandating background checks on all firearms sold at gun shows - they didn't want it. And they convinced Clinton to veto it.

    Why? The only possible reason is that there was something in that bill that they considered essential, beyond the background checks.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Japete: “You can preserve private sales and still have background checks. I have always said that.”

    Which means the language would have to be written so that service of an FFL is not required (by opening the NICS for private use). Between that and dropping the talk of gunshows (by focusing on all private sales), you’ll end up with a lot less resistance from gun owners, and you’ll stand a much better chance of actually getting something done. Plus the end result would be all gun sales going through a background check, which would be much preferred over just gunshows, right?

    Japete: “I acknowledge grenades, rocket launchers, etc. So now what? If I acknowledge those, what difference does it make to you?”

    Well, I mean acknowledging that they don’t come from the USA. Our gangmenbers don’t have machine guns, rocket launchers, and grenades, so why does the Mexican Cartel?

    ReplyDelete
  46. TS- You are at least the second person to say this about gun shows and private sales. It's interesting to me that you all would find this acceptable. We have generally had push back about background checks on all private sales but would like it if that could happen. As to the details, someone other than us would have to work this out.

    ReplyDelete
  47. jdege, let's see some links to those outlandish assertions.

    "That their ultimate goal is to eliminate private gun ownership in its entirety, and that their advocacy for incremental restrictions is a means towards that end has not been hidden, they've openly stated as much."

    Nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "jdege, let's see some links to those outlandish assertions."

    Regarding open admission of intent to deceive and misdirect:

    "The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
    — Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.


    Regarding intent to ban entirely:


    "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it."
    - Dianne Feinstein


    "We’re going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of all guns - is going to take time.....The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." - Pete Shields

    "To end the crisis [gun violence], we have to regulate- or, in the case of handguns and assault weapons, completely ban- the product…. We are far past the where registration, licensing, safety training, background checks, or waiting periods will have much effect on firearms violence."
    - Josh Sugerman

    ReplyDelete
  49. Yes indeed. These were statements made by people very passionate about the issue of guns and gun violence. Pete Shields is now dead. The others are old statements. It's not like the folks at the NRA have not made incendiary comments. For instance, Wayne LaPierre at a conservative confernce 2 years ago said, "The guys with the guns make the rules." What does that mean anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  50. "For instance, Wayne LaPierre at a conservative confernce 2 years ago said, 'The guys with the guns make the rules.' What does that mean anyway?"

    It seems pretty straightforward. If the government has all the guns, it can make whatever rules it likes. What, after all, could anyone do about it?

    "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
    - Hubert Humphrey


    "My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
    - Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
    dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc: Silveira v. Lockyer, 06 May 2003.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Joan,

    You say "What?!?!" and "Nonsense" a lot.

    First off is this quote from the Washington Post "has seized more than 35,000 firearms from narco-traffickers since December 2006, and both governments say 90 percent of the weapons originated in the United States."

    And that post is 90% correct, except that they meant to say "90 percent of weapons able to be traced originated in the United States". That's a big difference.

    How big a difference? Only 17% of the weapons seized were confirmed by trace to have originated in the US. That means roughly 5,000 out of the 35,000 reported in the article. And of those 5000, we do not know if they were hunting rifles, pistols, or shotguns.

    I'm just saying, it is common sense for Mexico to do something about the 83% of guns not coming from the US before worrying about 17% that do. Maybe they need to crack down on their norther border? After all, that would be common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  52. When a gun obviously didn't come from the US--do you think Mexico submits it for US tracing?

    So what the 90% means is that Mexico is 90% accurate at determining which captured guns came from the US. They don't submit every gun, and the ones they do submit are not a random sample of all guns recovered.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Japete: “You are at least the second person to say this about gun shows and private sales. It's interesting to me that you all would find this acceptable.”

    I have been careful to avoid the word “all”. There will be those opposed to any background checks, and then there will be those like me who would like to know that the person I am selling to is not a felon.

    Japete: “We have generally had push back about background checks on all private sales but would like it if that could happen.”

    Look at the language of the law (or the concepts that were being discussed). If it involved having to go through an intermediary to sell something you own- then that is probably the main reason for the push back. This is not just a detail- it is a fundamental basis for how the law would be executed and is the difference between some support and no support at all.

    ReplyDelete