Some Gun Rules We Can All Agree On -AG BS

[WhiteFeather]

Talk about "news speak" what a bunch of BS, the AG are trying to take the high ground and still no focus on criminals, just firearms are the problem

Some Gun Rules We Can All Agree On

By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG and THOMAS M. MENINO
June 30, 2008; Page A11

Finally. After decades of ideological debates over the meaning of every word and comma contained in the U.S. Constitution's one-sentence Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling that should largely settle the matter.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, while also affirming the constitutionality of reasonable restrictions aimed at preserving public safety and deterring criminals from acquiring and using firearms. Now it's time for all elected officials to start working together to enact creative new solutions to violent crime.

For years, shouting matches over the Second Amendment drowned out reasoned discussion of any middle ground. One side argued for a handgun ban, the other for repeal of an assault-weapons ban. It made for good political theater, but it prevented progress on common-sense proposals that would achieve what both sides say they want: keeping criminals from illegally purchasing and possessing guns.

Two years ago, a group of 15 mayors came together to begin reclaiming this middle ground and working to toughen enforcement of federal laws. Today, our coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns has more than 300 members from every region of the country and from both major political parties.

Mayors – often the ones in charge of police departments – recognize that the constitutionally sound middle ground is large enough for all those who have a good-faith interest in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and protecting public safety.

Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with a firearm. That's the equivalent of a Virginia Tech massacre. And like the Virginia Tech killer, most murderers purchase or possess their guns in violation of federal law. Our bipartisan coalition of mayors has identified four key reforms that would fix the federal government's primary tool for preventing illegal gun sales: the background check system.

- Close the gun-show loophole. Currently, licensed gun dealers are required to run criminal background checks on all buyers, but a loophole in the law enables criminals to avoid these checks if they buy from "occasional sellers" who don't have federal licenses. These unlicensed sellers, who often operate at gun shows, shoot a hole through the background-check system that allows criminals to purchase guns. That is why the major presidential candidates have called for this gun show loophole to be closed.

- End gun-dealer fire sales. If the federal government shuts down gun dealers for selling illegally, it nevertheless allows those dealers to sell off their inventory without conducting the background checks that it normally requires them to do. Imagine if a liquor store was shut down for selling to minors. Would anyone support a policy that would allow the owner to sell off all the remaining liquor without checking IDs? Of course not.

- Require gun dealers to do background checks on employees. Under the current law, if a person can't buy guns – because he or she has a criminal or mental-illness record – that person cannot sell guns, either. But the law fails to require dealers to conduct background checks on their employees, even though they already have background-check machines in their stores.

- Close the "terror gap." If the federal government can prevent a potentially dangerous person from getting on a plane, shouldn't it also be able to prevent that person from buying guns? Last year, the Bush administration endorsed a bill that will close the terror gap. Congress should make it law this year.

Recently, our coalition of mayors commissioned a bipartisan public opinion poll to ask Americans what they thought of these four ideas. In each case, more than 80% of Americans – including more than 80% of gun owners – stated their support. This is the vast middle ground shared by mayors across the country, and now that the Supreme Court has swept aside the old ideological debate, the only question remaining is whether Congress has the courage to join us.

Mr. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York City. Mr. Menino is the mayor of Boston. They are the founding co-chairs of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org.

[kevindsingleton]

What is the "terror gap"? I've never heard of a gun dealer "fire sale", either. Do they really get to sell off their inventory, to private citizens, without the NICS check? I've never heard of that.

I might support prohibiting both of those, if I knew what they are, or believed they actually happen.

Ok; I found it:
__________________________________________________ __________
WHAT IS THE TERROR GAP? Under current federal law, the FBI has no authority to block sales of firearms to terror suspects. After 9/11, it makes no sense that the federal government can't stop gun sales to some of the same people it thinks are too dangerous to get on a plane.
A glaring gap in federal background checks: Right now federal law prohibits nine categories of dangerous persons from purchasing or possessing firearms. Remarkably, persons on the terror watch lists are not among these prohibited purchasers.

EXAMPLES OF THE TERROR GAP:
Purchases documented by GAO report: Gun purchases by terrorist suspects are documented in a 2005 GAO report that concluded that DOJ was not using the watchlists adequately.
The GAO report indicated people on a terrorist watch list had tried to buy guns 58 times and succeeded 47 times over a nine-month period (February - October 2004).1
Use of guns in terrorist incidents:
Halberstam murder. On March 1, 1994, Rashid Baz shot and killed 16-year old Ari Halberstam on an on-ramp to the Brooklyn Bridge. Baz was armed with a machine gun, a 9 mm pistol, and a "street sweeper" shotgun.
Kahane murder. On November 5, 1990 in a Manhattan hotel, El Sayed A. Nosair assassinated Rabbi Meir Kahane with a .357 revolver. Nosair was linked to the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Empire State Building murders. On February 23, 1997, Ali Abu Kamal opened fire on the observation deck of the Empire State Building with a handgun purchased in Florida, killing one tourist and wounding six before killing himself. A note found in his pocket expressed hatred for the United States, Great Britain, Israel, and France.
Fort Dix plot. In the summer of 2007, six terror suspects were arrested for plotting an attack on Fort Dix after trying to buy an assortment of M-16s, AK-47s, and handguns from a government informant.

SOLUTIONS: Bills to close the terror gap are pending in both houses of Congress.
The Lautenberg - King bill (S. 1237 / H.R. 2074): Gives DOJ discretion to block sales to persons identified as terror suspects.
DOJ would have discretion to allow particular gun purchases by suspects to proceed so as not to tip off the suspect.
These DOJ determinations would be subject to judicial review.
Once DOJ made such a determination, the buyer could not:
Purchase a gun, because they would fail instant background checks;
Possess a gun, if they knew about the determination;
Hold a license to deal guns; or
Receive or possess explosives or work for a licensed explosives dealer.
The Bush Administration and its Justice Department support the bill.
The House anti-gang bill (H.R. 3547): A bipartisan anti-gang bill now pending in the House also includes similar provisions to close the terror gap.
__________________________________________________ __________
So, the FBI can't block gun purchases by terror suspects? Can't they just arrest them, where they stand? I mean, they are suspects, right? And, they know precisely where they are? And, it's highly likely that there's a guy standing a few feet away, with a large caliber pistol on his hip, with the terrorist suspect's identification, address, photo and description? Just send a couple agents out, and pick him up! It doesn't have anything to do with buying a gun!

It doesn't appear that the terrorists have been very effective with their post-gun purchase terror, either. Especially the Fort Dix six, who shouldn't even be included in the examples, since they weren't buying from a licensed dealer!

To be honest, I expect that terrorists aren't buying most of their firearms from licensed dealers, so this isn't really going to have much impact, except to slow down the "instant" check system while they do one more query against the database.

[JoeWilliams]

"even though they already have background-check machines in their stores"

How many people do you think know the "background check machine" is a frigging telephone?

[Rule10b5]

I love how they're characterizing it as an ideological debate that has finally been resolved in their favor. Nevermind that until last week they were shrieking that there was no individual right to own, period, and that as such any regulation was fair game...but that today there is an individual right that is subject to reasonable regulation.

[dgg9]

Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with a firearm.

This is flatly a lie.

In 2004 (the most recent data available), there were 9,326 murders by firearms. That's about 25 a day.

See Table 2.9:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offen...me/murder.html

In reality, there might be close to 34 TOTAL US murders a day.

[PhilA]

I've always believed in the utility of win-win negotiating. So bear with me a minute here while I ask the entire PAFOA membership the following:

Why are we not, as a collective, willing to give up a bit of middle ground in an effort to win greater freedoms?

For example. The "gun show" loophole. I agree on this one. If we want to keep more guns (note I said MORE and not ALL) out of the hands of criminals, why is it such a bad idea to disallow private sales of firearms during gun shows? If I'm on the up and up, why would I balk at having to pay a few extra bucks to have the transfer done by a registered FFL? Yes--I know--some will shout blasphemy, because that puts every firearm transaction under the scrutiny of the government and gives them greater potential to seize our guns. Whether that becomes reality is a coin toss, and history bears out that the chances of it happening are rather slim.

Background for every purchase--also a good idea. It shouldn't matter who is buying a gun. If you want one, you have to be a citizen in good standing with the law. No mental issues. No criminal backgrounds or history of domestic abuse. No minors. Period.

One gun a month. This is a tougher issue, but I still think its one of those areas where we could give some ground to show we're just as serious as the policy makers about reducing the number of guns showing up in the waistbands of criminals. Collectors will cry foul--what about sequential serial numbered guns?! What about this? What about that? Again, it's about deciding what's a priority and what's not. Is it more important to purchase several guns every 30 days, or is it perhaps more reasonable to show we're helping tame gun violence and can be more accepting of lesser restrictions to gain greater overall freedom and raise our standing in the eye of public opinion? It might require some creative planning when making gun purchases, like working with a favorite dealer to get the two matching sixguns you want, purchasing one of them now and writing a post-dated check for the second gun which your FFL will hold and sell to you 31 days later.

I guess what I'm trying to float here is that the notion of gun control doesn't--IMO--have to be such a fierce tug of war. Maybe if we give freely, we'll get something in return.

Question is, what would we negotiate for? I'd be willing to give up gun show loopholes and one gun a month and stronger background checks for, say, nationwide concealed carry reciprocity.

Thoughts?

[JoeWilliams]

snip

Why are we not, as a collective, willing to give up a bit of middle ground in an effort to win greater freedoms?

snip

Because every time, every single time, we've compromised on gun control, the antis then start pushing more. They are committed to a private ownership ban, and they few every compromise as just one more small step toward that goal.

[TaurusGuy]

"even though they already have background-check machines in their stores"

How many people do you think know the "background check machine" is a frigging telephone?

LMAO! That is great, isn't it?

[Statkowski]

All this call for "negotiation" appears to be one-sided. We give in on one-gun-a-month. What do we get in return? Nothing. All we've done is surrender one more right.

No thanks, we've got enough restrictions as it is.

[dgg9]

For example. The "gun show" loophole. I agree on this one. If we want to keep more guns (note I said MORE and not ALL) out of the hands of criminals, why is it such a bad idea to disallow private sales of firearms during gun shows?

There is no "gun show loophole." That term is a fabrication created by gun controllers. The laws governing sales of firearms are exactly the same in gun shows as anywhere else.

In short, to "disallow private sales of firearms during gun shows" CREATES a different set of laws for gun shows than for anywhere else.

Second, go to a gun show and look around you. At the risk of being accused of profiling, how many criminals do you think shop there? It's as easy, even easier to buy a gun off-paper at other places.

Third, no handgun can be sold off-paper in PA, gun show or no gun show. Criminals overwhelmingly use handguns. Once again, go to an actual gun show and see what people are carrying around for private sales: a lof hunting guns and old milsurp bolt actions.

In short, the proposal has no merit at all.

Background for every purchase--also a good idea. It shouldn't matter who is buying a gun. If you want one, you have to be a citizen in good standing with the law. No mental issues. No criminal backgrounds or history of domestic abuse. No minors. Period.

That puts EVERY gun sold in the registry, thus facilitating a later confiscation. Again, all handgun sales already do go through FFL.

Also, criminals don't get guns this way.

One gun a month. This is a tougher issue, but I still think its one of those areas where we could give some ground to show we're just as serious as the policy makers about reducing the number of guns showing up in the waistbands of criminals.

"Show we're serious?" IOW, more "gesture" politics with no value. Hint: other states have tried 1 gun a month laws and they didn't work there either.

I guess what I'm trying to float here is that the notion of gun control doesn't--IMO--have to be such a fierce tug of war. Maybe if we give freely, we'll get something in return.

It's a sucker's bet that only fools fall for. Giving more only invites more taking. Gun controllers will pocket every concession, then ask for more.