Guns & Patriots

Why Liberals Want Gun Shows Stopped

A fundamental principle of a free people is the ability to transfer property to someone else without government intervention. In the case of firearms, it is often a tradition to pass on a gun from one generation to another.

Recently a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns co-chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg,  commissioned a poll to determine how the public felt about tightening background checks on people that bought guns. It will come as little surprise that a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns wants additional restrictive legislation on the already restrictive process and they even bought the research that indicates the public agrees.

The target of liberal legislators is the gun show. If you are a licensed gun dealer you hold a Federal Firearms License and are required by law to perform a background check before you can release the gun to the buyer. That makes good sense and often there is a waiting period. A waiting period makes good sense too unless you are someone being threatened or harassed and you happen to need a way to defend yourself. The attacker will be reassured that the government will deny you, the potential victim, an immediate opportunity to purchase a tool to defend yourself. When an attack is going to happen in seconds the police, if called, will respond in minutes to take the crime report.

Here is the controversial aspect of a gun show: the unlicensed seller. This is a person that wants to sell his personal property to another individual. It is the equivalent of you saying “Mike, you want to sell that .22?” And then me telling you I’ll take 50-bucks for it. We have a deal and I’m the unlicensed seller. But, I don’t need a license to sell you my .22. That is the “gun show loophole.”

Closing the “gun show loophole” enables the government to curtail person to person sales. That is what is really behind the attack on gun shows. Every gun would have to be turned into a gun dealer so that it could be tracked by the Federal Government and then the transfer process would be monitored by the Federal Government. The right you have now to sell your neighbor your shotgun will be gone, forever.

What is even more disturbing is the loss of the right to pass on your gun to a family member. The tradition of passing on grandpa’s gun to his grandson will be legislated out of existence. Gramps will have to pass the gun to a federally authorized entity that will then register it and pass it on to the recipient. Often the gifting of the first firearm is to someone thirteen or fourteen years old. Because they can not legally own a gun at that age it would have to be transferred to someone who would then hold the gun until it could be then transferred to the final owner when legal age is reached. That’s a lot of red tape to give someone your squirrel rifle.

Anti-gun liberals know that more bureaucracy on law abiding citizens is the easiest form of gun control and hidden under the label of ‘common sense gun measures.” If the government can make criminals out of people that have never committed a criminal act with administrative measures then people will avoid buying, owning and transferring guns altogether. Then they accomplish what they set out to do; stop legal citizens from owning guns.

New York City has some of the toughest gun laws in the United States but they have not eliminated crimes committed with guns. Why? Because going after gang members is dangerous, expensive and more often than not the criminal ends up back on the street. Mayors Against Illegal Guns should take a closer look at those that are committing the crimes and focus on punishing the perpetrators rather than building a bureaucracy that is targeted at legal gun owners.

I remember when I was a teenager walking down the street with an Ithaca Model 37 pump 12 gauge in the rural Adirondack mountain town where I grew up. I had purchased the gun from a friend and there wasn’t any paperwork, background check, state or federal government involved. A police car pulled up next to me and the officer asked “Are you coming or going? I get off in a few minutes and if you want to go hunting together hop in and I’ll give you a ride.” It turns out I was walking home and after I told that to the officer, he just said “Ok then, next time” and drove off. To me, that officer exercised common sense gun control. An anti-gun liberal would have had me, the gun seller and probably the officer up on federal charges and locked us up for a long time. It’s a pity that the left doesn’t understand the relationship between gun ownership and crime but it will be a tragedy if we let the Bloomberg lead coalition erode the gun rights of a free people.

Sign Up
  • steve001968

    Background checks in and of themselves are a fundamental problem simply because they force citizens to ask governmental permission to exercise a basic constitutional right. It is also becoming increasingly clear to anyone who watches the size of form 4473 grow with the ever increasing list of prohibited individuals that we are well beyond only prohibiting violent felons who have been convicted in a court of law. Next will come people on the terrorist watchlist who have been added without due process of law by unelected burearocrats, then people with minor misdemeanor convictions, then drunk drivers, and finally speeders and others with minor traffic infractions.

    The hard cold fact is that the checks are a joke to real criminals anyway because they rely on easily counterfeited ID’s. Felons and other prohibited persons willing to lie can simply use false ID. As far as the NICS check is concerned the buyer is who he or she says they are. The only way a check would really be reliable would be to use biometric identification and even then it is still very vulnerable to straw purchasers. Prohibition has failed every time it has ever been tried in the US and it will continue to fail.

  • sundog50

    Dear youreanidiot…

    As a convicted felon, you can get them the way other convicted felons do:
    *Steal them
    *Buy them from another felon (as it is currently illegal to sell a firearm to a convicted felon)
    *Arrange an illegal transaction involving a “straw buyer” and create another felon.

  • steve001968

    “I personally take a prescription medicine for chronic pain that is also prescribed for depression in others. That alone would disqualify me for legal gun ownership.”

    No, it doesn’t. But it might the next time they add on to the ever growing prohibited persons list.

  • steve001968

    As soon as you have to ask permission to do something, practically speaking, it ceases to be a right. That’s where we are with background checks. The fact is that they are virtually useless for stopping criminals from obtaining guns anyway. They are easily circumvented with false identification. Even if they used biometrics to solve that problem they would still be completely vulnerable to straw purchasers. Prohibition didn’t work with alcohol (unless you consider giving rise to organized crime working), it doesn’t work with drugs and isn’t ever going to work with guns either.

  • steve001968

    “Why not drop the fake Appalachian vernacular and add something positive to the conversation”

    It can’t do that. It would have to actually be able to formulate some sort of logical argument. I doubt it’s done that thus far in it’s life and it probably isn’t going to start today.

  • steve001968

    It’s more than that. It’s a way to gain control over personal property, and, of course, tax the transaction.

  • steve001968

    For all that to mean anything the politicians and judges would actually have to be able to read and comprehend a dictionary. You’re asking a lot……

  • steve001968

    If they’re going to trample the 2nd amendment I guess they figure they may as well throw the 1st under the bus too.

  • steve001968

    “Did you know that a SPEEDING TICKET in MANY states could make you FORFEIT your G*D GIVEN, Constitutionally protected, Second Amendment RIGHTS? See form 4473, question 11-C.”

    11C asks if you have been convicted of a felony or any other crime for which you could have been sentenced to more than one year. You would be hard pressed to be prohibited for speeding in and of itself. Especially since the 4473 instructions indicate that this does not include a state misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of 2 years or less.