Gun Control Legislation Fails in Virginia
Though that isn't quite the spin put on it by Larry O'Dell of the Associated Press:
The Committee made the right choice, as the proposed legislation was ignorant, irrelevant and unworkable, just as this article's lede is prejudicial and purposefully misleading. The "gun show loophole" is mostly a fable, and always has been, with only 2% of guns used in crimes being tracked back to gun shows. Most criminals obtain their firearms from family or friends who obtained firearms legally or illegally from another source.
Emotional pleas by relatives of Virginia Tech shooting victims failed Friday to persuade a legislative committee to close a loophole that allows criminals and the mentally ill to buy firearms at gun shows. The House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee voted 13-9 to kill legislation that would require unlicensed sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks on buyers. Such checks now are required only on transactions by federally licensed gun dealers. Thirty-two people were killed at Virginia Tech on April 16 by a mentally disturbed student who committed suicide as police closed in.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:07 PM
Comments
1
Your inability to research the legislation before posting this criticism of the law and the AP article is childishly irresponsible.
This legislation would not have required prospective purchasers to give personal information to people they do not know.
In fact, it would have forced promoters to conduct background checks on prospective vendors, making it difficult for a criminal to sell a gun just to get personal information.
Under this law, promoters would have to designate a dealer who would perform background checks for unlicensed sellers in return for a fee. Unlicensed sellers could not steal identities, and your worry about such a possibility shows that you know no more about this law than Mr. O'Dell.
I cannot for the life of me understand why you think that gun sales and purchases should be completely unregulated. This makes no logical sense, and forcing a background check for each sale would not in the least infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms except for verification of their status.
Whether or not Cho obtained his weapons this way makes no difference. Some criminals have, and should terrorists decide to begin operating in the US you would permit them to legally distribute firearms to each other with no government oversight of any kind.
But if you want to make the case for a gun regulation policy that allows criminals and terrorists to buy and sell firearms, you should do so on the merits, and not by inventing silly scenarios out of thin air.
As someone who constantly whines that others speak without knowing the facts, this is a glaring failure on your part to do the same. It's too bad a serious, thoughtful person did not write this blog post--people might actually have learned something useful.
This legislation would not have required prospective purchasers to give personal information to people they do not know.
In fact, it would have forced promoters to conduct background checks on prospective vendors, making it difficult for a criminal to sell a gun just to get personal information.
Under this law, promoters would have to designate a dealer who would perform background checks for unlicensed sellers in return for a fee. Unlicensed sellers could not steal identities, and your worry about such a possibility shows that you know no more about this law than Mr. O'Dell.
I cannot for the life of me understand why you think that gun sales and purchases should be completely unregulated. This makes no logical sense, and forcing a background check for each sale would not in the least infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms except for verification of their status.
Whether or not Cho obtained his weapons this way makes no difference. Some criminals have, and should terrorists decide to begin operating in the US you would permit them to legally distribute firearms to each other with no government oversight of any kind.
But if you want to make the case for a gun regulation policy that allows criminals and terrorists to buy and sell firearms, you should do so on the merits, and not by inventing silly scenarios out of thin air.
As someone who constantly whines that others speak without knowing the facts, this is a glaring failure on your part to do the same. It's too bad a serious, thoughtful person did not write this blog post--people might actually have learned something useful.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at January 19, 2008 11:46 AM (G/KDP)
2
I corrected the post regarding the background checks, but it was still a stupid, irrelevant law.
You don't seem to grasp that private sales are not regulated in most states, and implementing a hair-brained scheme that would only implement it in gun shows--typically held one weekend every couple of months, without implementing it in any other circumstance, at any other time--is moronic.
As for your fear-mongering, statist views--admitting that this law would have made no difference at VT, but as the liberal whine goes, if it saves one life we should try it--grow up.
Criminals will always get guns despite laws because--see if you can follow this--they arecriminals. They will break whatever law you pass, and therefore, these laws only annoy the law abiding.
As for your statement--"I cannot for the life of me understand why you think that gun sales and purchases should be completely unregulated," quit flogging your strawman in public. I've never said such a thing or supported such a position. You are simply a liar.
In the real world, I've sent people to jail for firearms law violations... few can claim the same.
I support rational, intelligent, effective laws with this manifestly was not. This was a pathetic excuse by cynical gun-grabbers to exploit a tragedy to pass an unrelated, incremental step towards a total ban.
I do, however, love how you state that I "would permit them [criminals and terrorists] to legally distribute firearms to each other with no government oversight of any kind," and then go on to attack me for "inventing silly scenarios out of thin air" in the very next sentence.
You're cute. Angry, irrational, dishonest and gullible, but cute.
You don't seem to grasp that private sales are not regulated in most states, and implementing a hair-brained scheme that would only implement it in gun shows--typically held one weekend every couple of months, without implementing it in any other circumstance, at any other time--is moronic.
As for your fear-mongering, statist views--admitting that this law would have made no difference at VT, but as the liberal whine goes, if it saves one life we should try it--grow up.
Criminals will always get guns despite laws because--see if you can follow this--they arecriminals. They will break whatever law you pass, and therefore, these laws only annoy the law abiding.
As for your statement--"I cannot for the life of me understand why you think that gun sales and purchases should be completely unregulated," quit flogging your strawman in public. I've never said such a thing or supported such a position. You are simply a liar.
In the real world, I've sent people to jail for firearms law violations... few can claim the same.
I support rational, intelligent, effective laws with this manifestly was not. This was a pathetic excuse by cynical gun-grabbers to exploit a tragedy to pass an unrelated, incremental step towards a total ban.
I do, however, love how you state that I "would permit them [criminals and terrorists] to legally distribute firearms to each other with no government oversight of any kind," and then go on to attack me for "inventing silly scenarios out of thin air" in the very next sentence.
You're cute. Angry, irrational, dishonest and gullible, but cute.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 19, 2008 01:04 PM (HcgFD)
3
Sticks and stones, baby. At one time or another, I have been all those things.
When someone speaks about or to you in the same terms you like to use for others, it seems to hit a nerve. Except for a quibble about how much gun regulation you would support, your response amounts to name calling--your usual tactic. If slippery slope and "statist" are the best you got, your preachin' ain't gettin' past the choir.
Gun shows happen more than "once every few weeks," at least here in Richmond. You support the right of people to hang about in the parking lots of these shows and sell guns from the trunk of their cars with no oversight and no regulation. No one knows who they are now, or who might begin to use this method to distribute guns to certain people in an organized fashion. You "would permit them [criminals and terrorists] to legally distribute firearms to each other with no government oversight of any kind." This is the status quo, and you don't think our legislature should change this. How this is a "silly scenario" is not clear to me. In what way, exactly, would you regulate this trading in firearms? Only if federally, so private sales are regulated everywhere?
Of course, criminals will always be able to get guns from somewhere. But why make it easier?
When someone speaks about or to you in the same terms you like to use for others, it seems to hit a nerve. Except for a quibble about how much gun regulation you would support, your response amounts to name calling--your usual tactic. If slippery slope and "statist" are the best you got, your preachin' ain't gettin' past the choir.
Gun shows happen more than "once every few weeks," at least here in Richmond. You support the right of people to hang about in the parking lots of these shows and sell guns from the trunk of their cars with no oversight and no regulation. No one knows who they are now, or who might begin to use this method to distribute guns to certain people in an organized fashion. You "would permit them [criminals and terrorists] to legally distribute firearms to each other with no government oversight of any kind." This is the status quo, and you don't think our legislature should change this. How this is a "silly scenario" is not clear to me. In what way, exactly, would you regulate this trading in firearms? Only if federally, so private sales are regulated everywhere?
Of course, criminals will always be able to get guns from somewhere. But why make it easier?
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at January 19, 2008 08:19 PM (DjnGX)
4
What would AP do with a serious journalist? Is there any such thing?
Posted by: arch at January 20, 2008 05:40 AM (ccr5J)
5
You "would permit them [criminals and terrorists] to legally distribute firearms to each other with no government oversight of any kind."
Suggest reading all relevant parts of 27 CFR before making further statements like this. You sound ignorant of existing federal law.
Suggest reading all relevant parts of 27 CFR before making further statements like this. You sound ignorant of existing federal law.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 20, 2008 12:04 PM (ERV3B)
6
I think Mr. Scott needs reading comprehension classes.
There was a lot of substance in CY's reply, which Mr. Scott apparently was not able to grasp. Some highlights:
private sales are not regulated in most states
And:
admitting that this law would have made no difference at VT
And:
In the real world, I've sent people to jail for firearms law violations... few can claim the same.
Yet Mr. Scott not only passes over such substantive statements, he then goes on to accuse CY of doing just that.
Look up "projection," Mr. Scott. And I ain't talking about what happens in a movie theater.
And if you can't hold a decent debate, go back to DailyKOS or DU. You seem out of your league here.
(Any of my conservative buddies here wanna bet me that the paragraph above is the one Mr. Scott latches on to?)
There was a lot of substance in CY's reply, which Mr. Scott apparently was not able to grasp. Some highlights:
private sales are not regulated in most states
And:
admitting that this law would have made no difference at VT
And:
In the real world, I've sent people to jail for firearms law violations... few can claim the same.
Yet Mr. Scott not only passes over such substantive statements, he then goes on to accuse CY of doing just that.
Look up "projection," Mr. Scott. And I ain't talking about what happens in a movie theater.
And if you can't hold a decent debate, go back to DailyKOS or DU. You seem out of your league here.
(Any of my conservative buddies here wanna bet me that the paragraph above is the one Mr. Scott latches on to?)
Posted by: C-C-G at January 20, 2008 03:19 PM (F+vKR)
7
So Mr. R. would have me do a background check if my neighbor wanted to buy a shotgun or rifle off of me?
Here's a newsflash for you, it's NONE OF YOUR FRIGGIN BUSINESS.
You know who wants law abiding cits to register their private gun sales? People who ultimately want all guns banned from the hands of the citizenry.
Here's a newsflash for you, it's NONE OF YOUR FRIGGIN BUSINESS.
You know who wants law abiding cits to register their private gun sales? People who ultimately want all guns banned from the hands of the citizenry.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at January 20, 2008 03:25 PM (La7YV)
8
"... It was bad legislation borne of emotionalism, exploited by the cynical, creating serious problems and accomplishing little or nothing. ... The proposed law would not have had any effect on [the criminal act exploited to promote passage of the law]. ... "
Now WHERE have I heard this before? Oh, right, every time firearms legislation is proposed that gun-banners support.
Now WHERE have I heard this before? Oh, right, every time firearms legislation is proposed that gun-banners support.
Posted by: DoorHold at January 20, 2008 03:26 PM (lBACd)
Posted by: Pablo at January 20, 2008 05:28 PM (yTndK)
10
Knives too, Pablo. And baseball bats. And frying pans.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 20, 2008 06:14 PM (F+vKR)
11
So Mr. R. would have me do a background check if my neighbor wanted to buy a shotgun or rifle off of me?
Newsflash: if you know or have reason to suspect your neighbor may be a disqualified person, you're already breaking the law as it exists today selling them something in a private sale.
Newsflash: if you know or have reason to suspect your neighbor may be a disqualified person, you're already breaking the law as it exists today selling them something in a private sale.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 20, 2008 09:30 PM (ERV3B)
12
Interesting that you automatically assume that if I had prior knowledge to DQ them from buying a gun, I'd sell it to them anyway.
What exactly is it you decided to base this nonsense on?
What exactly is it you decided to base this nonsense on?
Posted by: Conservative CBU at January 21, 2008 12:04 AM (La7YV)
13
I comprehend what I read very well, thank you very much--well enough at least to know that poor regulation of private sales, Virginia Tech, and Bob Owens' history as an enforcer of gun laws have nothing to do with the central question of whether government should regulate multiple firearms sales by unlicensed dealers at gun shows.
This is not a discussion about banning guns, or about whether or not you can sell your shotgun to your huntin' buddies. It is not about knives and baseball bats. And it is not about my assumptions about whether CBU would knowingly sell to a criminal. I think firearms sales should be regulated so criminals and terrorists will have to work harder to get them--because it is my "friggin' business" whether terrorists and criminals are armed.
27 CFR does NOT regulate gun sales by unlicensed dealers at gun shows. It does not even require that they maintain records of the sales they make. In 2000, the ATF found that these unlicensed dealers had diverted about 26,000 firearms from legal to illegal commerce. This is a non-trivial conduit used by criminals to obtain weapons, whether the VT shooter used it or not.
Nor is the notion that terrorists might use these shows to traffic in firearms a "silly scenario." Ali Boumelhem was convicted of conspiracy to ship weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon. He and his brother Mohamed had purchased a large number of shotguns and weapons parts at gun shows without background checks. Another terrorist, a Pakistani named Asrar, frequented gun shows for seven years, and bought several weapons, allegedly for al Qaeda, without background checks.
If you don't want to make it harder for people like this to arm themselves, you can just say so without insulting those of us who would try to interdict this trade in weapons to terrorists. But I find it strange that you think this makes you a patriot.
This is not a discussion about banning guns, or about whether or not you can sell your shotgun to your huntin' buddies. It is not about knives and baseball bats. And it is not about my assumptions about whether CBU would knowingly sell to a criminal. I think firearms sales should be regulated so criminals and terrorists will have to work harder to get them--because it is my "friggin' business" whether terrorists and criminals are armed.
27 CFR does NOT regulate gun sales by unlicensed dealers at gun shows. It does not even require that they maintain records of the sales they make. In 2000, the ATF found that these unlicensed dealers had diverted about 26,000 firearms from legal to illegal commerce. This is a non-trivial conduit used by criminals to obtain weapons, whether the VT shooter used it or not.
Nor is the notion that terrorists might use these shows to traffic in firearms a "silly scenario." Ali Boumelhem was convicted of conspiracy to ship weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon. He and his brother Mohamed had purchased a large number of shotguns and weapons parts at gun shows without background checks. Another terrorist, a Pakistani named Asrar, frequented gun shows for seven years, and bought several weapons, allegedly for al Qaeda, without background checks.
If you don't want to make it harder for people like this to arm themselves, you can just say so without insulting those of us who would try to interdict this trade in weapons to terrorists. But I find it strange that you think this makes you a patriot.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at January 22, 2008 06:26 AM (9dREO)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0147 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0114 seconds, 21 records returned.
Page size 18 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.