Arlos wrote:Zeek, I'm not suggesting any drastic new laws or anything, just that gun show sales should have to follow the same rules as everywhere else. If you're a law-abiding citizen, they're no barrier whatsoever to obtaining the weapons. You might just have to wait a few days, which I don't consider a serious attack on your freedom and liberty, especially as once you HAVE the weapon, you can take it wherever you want (with the obvious exception of concealed handguns into public, etc.)
I'm not saying there's mass quantities of loonies and violent people prowling around, but as the Virginia Tech shootings taught us, they *DO* exist. Now, I know that wasn't a gun show, but they were one of the states that didn't do a mental health background check.
In any case, as I said, I would never be for trying to take your guns away or prevent you from buying and owning guns legally, not so long as the 2nd amendment exists, anyway. As I have stated multiple times, all I think should be required is passing a gun safety test to be able to take them home as opposed to storing them at a gun range, say. Classes would be available, but not required, as lots of people, especially ex-military or people who grew up around guns wouldn't need the classes to pass the test, and thus shouldn't have to pay for them.
Anyway, going back to the original point, I am, as I said, in no way asking for any new restrictions to you or anyone else law-abiding from buying weapons. I just think that gun shows should have to abide by the same laws as gun stores, and no, I don't see that as an attack on liberty.
-Arlos
Passing a gun safety test, is a new restriction whether you believe so or not. Surely it is a restriction with good intention in mind, but then, most restrictions are. The fundamental issue with this however, is what other constitutional right do you need to pass a test for in order to exercise? Should we test news anchors for bias before allowing private corporations to put them on TV? Should we test voters for the ability to name more than 1 of the candidates before they cast their vote?
Restricting the private sale of firearms between two individuals opens a ridiculous can of worms that has nothing to do with firearms. It has everything to do with private property rights, and the lack of interstate commerce, which is required for Congress to have any power to legislate on it. Which they have. If I desire to sell a rifle to a man in Utah, I can, but I have to ship the rifle to a dealer (FFL) in Utah, who does a back ground check on the buyer before transferring the rifle to him. This is interstate commerce, and regulated as such. If I want to sell a rifle at a gunshow in the next town over, I'm making a private intrastate transaction that Congress has little if any power to control. Gun shows are not "loopholes." They're a gathering of private individuals conduction private transactions, intrastate. Dealers also sell guns at gun shows, and they DO background checks on their buyers, as required by law. I can understand why this is confused by those who report on gun shows, since it would take a little bit of research instead of simple hysteria to get it straightened out.
Drem wrote:Eziekial wrote:Actually, people started buying up weapons immediately after he was elected. I had to search over 4 months for my M1A and the cost had almost doubled. Ammo is hard to come by. If you don't believe me, check out the site cheaperthandirt.com and look how many of the cheaper ammos are out of stock or "limited supply". Look up .223 ammo (that's AR15 which is the civilian equivalent to the M16 or .308 which I need for the M14.
And it's not because "I can, dammit".
yeah this sort of thing has been all over the news. assault weapons at gun shows are basically disappearing. and reporters found out that it's akin to going to a store to buy a candy bar. for a few extra dollars most vendors wouldn't even ask for your ID, much less do a background check. it's pretty scary
and the ammo shortage is kinda also due to the war in Iraq FYI because distributors have to give first priority to the armed forces
This is simply not true. You can't "slip Bubba a $20" and get out of a back ground check. If a FFL dealer is selling firearms, whether at his storefront or at a gunshow, he is required by law to do Federal NICS back ground checks. He isn't going to risk the multiple $100k fines, the 10 year federal prison terms, for a "few extra dollars." FFL dealers are some of the most audited regulated business people in the country. The BATFE is relentless in their pursuit of fraudulent FFL dealers, and punish them to the full extent of the law for even minor paperwork mistakes. As I explained above, if you see a gun bought at a gunshow with no back ground check, then it was a private transaction between two individuals. Congress doesn't have the power to regulate it any further than what the law says about whether the buyer can legally own a firearm: IE not a felon, over 18, no domestic assault, etc. If you sold a car to a habitual drunk driver, is it your responsibility to do a background check on him? Of course not. Even so, many many private individuals who buy and sell firearms ask for ID, or refuse the sale if it doesn't appear legitimate.
Gidan wrote:automatic to me means you pull the trigger and the weapon continues firing until all rounds available are spent without releasing the trigger. This does not include weapons that fire in say 3 round bursts, however IMO there is no need for that either.
You're referring to automatic firearms as if they're sold willy nilly at gun shows, which is simply not the case. First, lets define Title 1 and Title 2 firearms. A Title 1 firearm is what you can go into WalMart, or Ace Hardware, or your local gunstore and purchase with a valid ID and clean background check. These include bolt actions, pump actions, shotguns and rifles and handguns of different varieties. And
semiautomatic weapons. Title 2 firearms are much, much more heavily restricted. These include automatic weapons, which are the most restricted of all. So restricted in fact, that in 1986 Congress passed a rider on the FOPA bill called the Hughes Amendment that banned the new manufacture of any fully automatic weapons for civilian sales. Since May 1986 not a single new automatic has been sold to a civillian (except in one known case, where a congressman allegedly talked the ATF into accepting his registration form on a gun not yet in the registry.)
Now think about that for a second. An automatic, or a machine gun, would be highly desirable to a lot of people, yeah? But the amount of machine guns available to the public is limited to what was registered before 1986. So their price has skyrocketed. Currently, for an M16, which costs the exact same amount to manufacture as an AR15 (say $1000 retail) commonly sells for $16,000. Sixteen thousand dollars. Aside from the restricted price, a civilian who wants to own a Title 2 firearm needs to register it with the BATFE, which is a time consuming process including duplicate Form 4s, duplicate passport photos, duplicate FBI fingerprint cards, a signature from a chief law enforcement officer in the applicants jurisdiction stating there are no local ordinances banning the firearm he's attempting to buy, and $200 for the tax stamp affixed to the approved forms.
As an aside, the BATFE defines a machine gun as any gun firing more than 1 round with 1 action of the trigger, so yes, 3 round burst is also a machine gun and regulated as such. Even a malfunctioning semi automatic rifle that fires 2 rounds with one trigger pull because of worn parts is considered a machine gun. Ask David Olofson of Wisconsin, who was convicted of unlawful transfer of a machine gun because his semi automatic rifle malfunctioned at a shooting range in front of a couple police officers.
Ziek, I hope to god you don't actually shop from those bastards at Cheaper than Dirt. If you need .308, I can show you some much better places to shop.
