The coming election and guns

[Niner]

I read a piece in the Field and Stream issue out now. Some stringer interviewed both candidates for 20 minutes on the outdoor issues. Seems neither hunts or does any actual fishing. Neither seem to own a gun..at least McCain says he doesn't.

Both say they are in favor of people hunting and self protection and both say they are in favor of protecting outdoor recreation resources.

Both are in favor of more gun show control. Probably the individual non commercial sellers selling from "private" collections with no control of who they sell to. This of course has nothing to do with placing an advertisement in the local fish rap or selling other than at gun shows. But we aren't dealing with deep thought here.

Obama is in favor of more legal control of "black guns". McCain isn't. Even thought the guns we are talking about are semi and not full auto by the castration in effect with present laws.

Both were presented a framed copy of a statement by Teddy Roosevelt from the distant past that was published in the magazine in favor of hunting and the great outdoors as an American birth right. Both smiled as expected.

Guns aren't the main issue of this election. More important things are on the table. However, I suspect that more gun owning and selling restrictions will be imposed no matter who is elected. It is yet to be seen if such restrictions as may occur will have any significant affect on the gun owning population.

I for one don't care if they tighten the gun show loopholes. I'm not sure I follow the black gun theory though. A semi shotgun for "hunting" is a more dangerous weapon at close range than a semi AK, I'd think.

Any thoughts on this?

[oldironsights]

Niner, you should not be devisive or careless in your thoughts.

By not supporting one type of legal firearm just because you don't care for it likely means you do not support the owner of such firearm.

Then you would be willing to have that owners rights sacrificed to protect your own?

What if the majority disliked what you owned & decided to allow YOUR firearms to be taken away to protect THIER interests?

See where this is leading?

As long as we break no moral or legal codes, we should be supportive of the owners of ALL firearms! What I mean is we do not support criminals or criminal use, nor should we support immoral activities, but DO support the legal use & ownership of ALL types of firearms.

We all need to support & defend each others rights, & show the enemies of our second amendment a common & unified front!

I used to ride motorcycles years ago, & there were different crowds of motorcyclists & different clubs that promoted thier brand of choice as being better than another brand & often looking upon any other motorcyclist that did not ride thier favored brand with disdain.

There were elected officials that viewed EVERY motorcyclist as an outlaw, & wanted to ban them from all public roads.

By providing a unified front, the motorcycling community silenced these efforts by a few elected officials to get motorcycles banned from our roadways.

The slogan was" It does not matter what you ride; all that matters is that you do ride"

It seems to be human nature to seperate ourselves by race, creed, political opinions, education, nationality, club, & just about everything else that can be thought of. While this can be of great comfort to retreat to our core beliefs, it can leave us & other deserving individuals exposed to attack from a common enemy, for if one club does not come to the defense of another club, than how long will it be before all these clubs are defeated?

Will the black powder crowd offer up the classic centerfire crowd to keep its interests alive?

Will the rimfire rifle crowd turn a blind eye to the infringement of the rights of the open class high power pistol crowd?

And we all hate those nasty shotgunners, right? We would not care if those Kalishnikov carbines were banished by decree!

Just as long as MY firearms are protected, I don't care about anyone elses!

It should not matter what type of firearm you own. All that matters is that you do own a firearm! We should all be brothers in arms facing the enemy!

[Niner]

Oldironsights I agree with you . Obama is less than aware in thinking there is a difference between semi auto milsurps and semi auto non milsurps. It's isn't logical to make a distinction without a difference.

I don't want to give up any right I now have....but this is a battle that will be lost long term....like the Brits. The thing is to hold out as long as we can.

[oldironsights]

Oldironsights I agree with you . Obama is less than aware in thinking there is a difference between semi auto milsurps and semi auto non milsurps. It's isn't logical to make a distinction without a difference.

I don't want to give up any right I now have....but this is a battle that will be lost long term....like the Brits. The thing is to hold out as long as we can.

We have a different type of government than Great Britain.

A constitutional republic where the people still rule the government, not the government ruling the people.

We have to fight for our rights by removing those officials who will not do the bidding of the electorate, as most seem to follow thier party policy.

The two party system that has evolved has ruined this country.

Put pressure on the government by writing & calling your congressmen & senators with your requests & opinions, & voting the disobeying bastards out of office.

We still have a voice, we still have laws & rights that must be fought for, otherwise either party will enact policy that will seperate the rights from the people.

We must not tolerate illegal acts by our servants.

[Woftam]

Got to agree with oldironsights. The fight is continual and the ballott box is really the only weapon on a long term basis. What is needed is unity and sadly in most places this is lacking.

Was discussing this subject with the eldest daughters S.O. (significant other - can't bring myself to call him the son-in-law) who knows an old bloke who was heavily into sidearms. The old bloke attended an Army Reserve recruiting day where the S.O. was giving a firearms demo (this was shortly after the Port Arthur massacre) and passed comment it was a good thing that the government was going to ban longarms. Somewhat taken aback the S.O. pointed out that the government was unlikely to stop at longarms. The old bloke was adamant that they wouldn't touch his pistols because they were so valuable and he was 'the right sort of bloke' to possess them. Guess who's screaming now that everybody should be supporting him ?

[NuJudge]

The definitions in these bills will screw all law-abiding American gun owners to the wall, with no impact on crime.

I used to be a State Senator here in Michigan. I used to hear a lot of talk about something Control advocates called the 'gun show loophole.' I asked about what they were concerned about. Control advocates said they wanted to prevent persons selling large quantities of firearms at gun shows, without being Licensed, Licensees being required to undergo a background check, keep records, and do background checks on purchasers. Control advocates noted that in their surveys, frequently less than half of gun show exhibitors had Firearms Dealer Licenses.

Being also an attorney and being aware of both the letter of and the BATFE's interpretations of the US Gun Control Act of 1968, I asked how this was not covered by existing law. The GCA '68 requires those engaged in the business of dealing firearms to be Licensed, and BATFE has a standard of 4 firearms sales within some period. I asked whether there were any prosecutions in Michigan for Dealing without a License at gun shows. No control advocates could ever answer these questions. Asking BATFE will get you the answer that prosecutions for these violations are very seldom, and yes, they look for them.

Looking at legislation that closes this alleged 'Loophole' is also instructive. The last such legislation I read had language that defined a gun show as occuring at any place where 50 firearms were present and might be for sale. If someone offered enough money, virtually any firearm any of us has is for sale. Those collectors amongst you that have 50+ firearms, did you know that your home is a 'gun show'? I frequently go to matches where 50+ firearms are present. Every day at my Skeet and Trap club, 50+ firearms are present.

One wonders whether Control advocates have ever been to a gun show. Those I go to frequently have vendors selling Jerky (but no firearms), gun cases (but no firearms), gun parts (but no firearms), surgical and survival gear (but no firearms). Oh, yes, one State Senator used to take a booth occasionally to hand out fliers on firearms regulation topics. At least as far as the gun shows conducted nearest my house, the percentage of vendors doing no firearms business seems to be about 60%.

To recap: no demonstration of a problem, no demonstration that current law does not cover the supposed problem, but lots of cost increases, red tape for the average gun owner, and huge traps for the unknowing, unsophisticated gun owner, which will effectively outlaw all non-licensee to non-licensee firearms transactions.

Because of the scrutiny I live under, I cannot remember selling or buying a firearm in the past 25 years, except through Licensed Dealers. When I got divorced, I sold off most of my collection (a lot more than 4), and of course did it through a Dealer. I chose to subject myself to this, the extra hassles and costs as a part of chosing to be an elected official. Would any of you so chose?

As a State Senator I regularly read the releases and legislation proposed by Control advocates. This and other legislation proposed by Control advocates stressed the need to do background checks. This got me thinking about the background checks that Michigan did. I called the Michigan State Police, within which Michigan's Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) is administered. I asked what databases they used for doing background checks on citizens asking for Permits to Purchase a Pistol and for Concealed Weapons Permits. I was told that the Michigan State Police urged local and County police agencies to use the Criminal History database within the LEIN. I asked about all the other things that cause a person to be not eligible to touch, possess, purchase, or own a firearm (GCA '68 and Michigan law). State Police told me they had what they had, and were satisfied with it. I immediately introduced bills to establish databases for all the other state-originated things that cause a person to be firearms ineligible: Involuntary Commitment to Mental Institution, found Incompetent to handle their affairs, ordered to divest themselves of weapons, and Domestic Violence order. I eventually got 3 of them to the Governor's desk (a State Rep from the other Party stole one of them). The only organization to help me was NRA. The chief Control advocate in the Legislature's only comment was, "Well, they won't do any harm."

After getting the databases set up, I read an article (in the Rifleman) about how bad background check databases were in one other state. I called up the LEIN people in State Police. They were satisfied with the quality of the data in the Michigan LEIN. They were not willing to do any checks on the quality of their data. I asked Michigan's Auditor General to audit the LEIN Criminal History database, and his results came back that a very large percentage of Felony Convictions were missing. In subsequent years, I asked him to do audits of the 4 databanks my legislation set up, and the results were similarly dreadful. I also found there are people in the LEIN system, who have supposedly committed a

Felony, who have actually not, and cannot get their name out of LEIN.

If someone came to you and asked you to submit to a lengthy background check in order to prevent criminals from getting guns, would you begin to wonder about their motives if you found they really did not seem to care about the quality of the databanks they were checking you against? What would you say if I told you that persons who committed a Felony by lying on the Federal 4473 form, and were actually caught by the background check are essentially never prosecuted?

Other examples of these regulatory schemes that Control advocates come up with abound. How many of you remember the "Plastic Gun" crisis caused by Glock pistols, and the "Cop Killer Bullet" crises of 25 years ago. Supposedly Glock pistols were un-detectable by X-Ray and magnetometer machines. Supposedly there was lots of ammo out there specifically designed to penetrate soft body armor of the sort Police wear. Both blatant, bald-faced lies, but legislation was introduced which would regulate firearms in all sorts of over-broad manners. X-Ray machines then and now can see an all-plastic squirtgun, and never had difficulty with Glocks, nor did Magnetometers. The "Cop Killer Bullet" legislation was a classic, banning probably 40% of bullet designs on the market then, especially those with even moderate copper content, especially the Nosler Partition. Possession would of course be a Felony. How do you tell from the outside of a softpoint bullet what its copper content is? How do you tell from the outside of a FMJ-bulleted cartridge whether it is blessed or damned? Rifle bullets of any design had no trouble penetrating soft body armor of that time, but of course the Legislation was not drafted to just apply to Pistol ammo, it was drafted to apply to both Pistol AND Rifle bullets.

I'm no longer a State Senator, no longer in a Public Policy setting role, and no longer a participant in gun control debates, but I still read the stuff from Control advocates, as well as from gun groups. Some Control advocates mean well, but those that mean well, I wish they would learn something about that which they want to regulate.

[Niner]

I can see you have thought about this and had the opportuntity to do something.

I asked about all the other things that cause a person to be not eligible to touch, possess, purchase, or own a firearm (GCA '68 and Michigan law). State Police told me they had what they had, and were satisfied with it. I immediately introduced bills to establish databases for all the other state-originated things that cause a person to be firearms ineligible: Involuntary Commitment to Mental Institution, found Incompetent to handle their affairs, ordered to divest themselves of weapons, and Domestic Violence order. I eventually got 3 of them to the Governor's desk (a State Rep from the other Party stole one of them). The only organization to help me was NRA. The chief Control advocate in the Legislature's only comment was, "Well, they won't do any harm."

But how do you square that with this:

To recap: no demonstration of a problem, no demonstration that current law does not cover the supposed problem, but lots of cost increases, red tape for the average gun owner, and huge traps for the unknowing, unsophisticated gun owner, which will effectively outlaw all non-licensee to non-licensee firearms transactions.

As long as there are gun shows where anybody who shows up can sell to anybody who has the money...as a private sale...there will be sales with no questions asked by anybody except the amount of money changing hands. I know I've bought guns like that at gun shows in Alabama. The "private sale" owners in some cases did ask me for my name when I insisted on a bill of sale that they were selling it to me and had ownership and the right to do so. It wasn't important to them to have any idea who I was. It was only important to me that I had a bill of sale.

I don't see how voting for either candidate will make any difference when both men you have to chose from believe the same in this particular instance. If both candidates are in favor of addressing the "gun show loophole", then it seems to me there is a large chance they can get some legistlation passed if a bill is introduced. It may be more of a concern how the law is worded and what will be the affect on transactions outside of gun shows if such legislation comes to pass.

[NuJudge]

Regardless of what regulatory burden gets imposed on me, I will do my best to follow it. It would be nice if once such a burden is imposed on me, it does something to reduce crime, and it would be nice if the BATFE would actually prosecute bad guy violators.

Current statute and interpretation punishes sellers of more than 4 firearms within some ill defined period. BATFE looks for people who do this. They find very very few. No significant problem, no significant need for regulation, no significant benefit from regulation. There are significant costs to gun owners and taxpayers, however, and the traps for the unwary gun owner should scare all of us.

Past experience with violators on the Brady Bill's Instant check is that when they actually do catch a bad guy preparing to to bad things by trying to purchase a firearm, they practically never prosecute, inspite of this Felony prosecution being very easy. The percentage under Federal law is a single digit percentage, the percentage under Michigan law is 0%.

Much of the case for this legislation is made with factoids that look compelling, such as the percentage of sellers at guns shows that don't have Dealer Licenses. The simple fact is that most sellers at my local gun shows are not selling firearms.

This is very similar to the case made for regulating ugly firearms with flash hiders, detachable magazines, collapseable stocks, & bayonet lugs: that the BATFE did a heck of a lot of traces on such firearms, far more than their percentage of the firearms population. It sounds compelling, as who would believe that BATFE would to traces on firearms that were not involved in crime? It sounds compelling until you find out that BATFE was just doing a lot of searches on this type of firearm, for no reason at all.