Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Maine Wants to Close the Gun Show Loophole with Another Loophole

Op-ed by J. Thomas Franklin is president of Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence.

Nine out of 10 Mainers would like to close the “gun-show loophole” that exempts “private” gun sales from any background check or record-keeping. Such exempt sales constitute about 40 percent of all gun sales. But proposed legislation now working its way through the State House does not reflect this near-unanimous public opinion.

The Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee has favorably recommended a bill, LD 1240, that would establish a voluntary background check system with significant penalties for selling a gun to a buyer who could not pass a background check. But a minority report from the committee recommends a watered-down bill that would make such a sale to an illegal buyer an offense only if the seller knew the buyer was illegal. That is, the seller could simply ask “You’re not a convicted felon, are you?” and if the buyer replied “Of course not,” the sale would be legal!

The minority report bill, supported by the National Rifle Association and gun advocates, would make no change to existing law, which already prohibits the knowing sale of a gun to an illegal buyer. It would literally “fix” the gun show loophole by re-enacting the same loophole. And it would cynically dismiss the clearly stated preference of Mainers for more modern and safer gun laws.

15 comments:

  1. Mike,
    The challenge here is that it brings the 80-90% figure the gun control industry uses into question. If congrescritters of either party were getting those kind of percentages from their constituients, then there would only be two choices, represent your district or start updating your resume.
    Here is a background check bill that is being suggested by Sen. Coburn which would be a true compromise. It protects the privacy of the seller and buyer, yet acomplishes the goal of all buyers being checked. If the 80%+ figure is accurate, it should be a slam dunk.
    What problems do you see with it? As you can see in the article, the big objections seem to be the fact that the guns cant be tracked from owner to owner. You know, the federal gun registry thing that we're not supposed to worry about.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I posted that USA Today article just now. You already know what I think about unenforceable useless gun control laws.

      I'm afraid, eventually you guys will have to get over your fear of the registry.

      Delete
    2. I'm afraid, eventually you guys will have to get over your fear of the registry.

      A federal gun registry is illegal, and will of course continue to be so for as long as the United States can claim not to be a tyrannical human rights abuser.

      Delete
    3. It's not fear, and we'll never give in on the issue of a registry.

      Delete
    4. Ah, I see why that Colburn article is stale now.

      Look at the blatant contradiction on this article. They say 90% of Maine residents want background checks but we wouldn't dare make it voluntary because no one would use it.

      Delete
    5. I am not "afraid" of a registry, registry is against federal law. I create my own registry with my guns. I have explained that process to you before. Its voluntary on my part and complete. Any law abiding gun owner would be willing to do the same, and I bet a lot already do.

      Delete
    6. There's no way we will ever trust the government with a registry. We have given you our reasons for opposing registries, we have given examples of how confiscations follow registries, both overseas and here in the states.

      So, No. No registries. Never.

      Delete
  2. Does every gun control freak quote that 90% nonsense, regardless of what state he's in? Your side lost, Mikeb. You made gains only in states that you already had enslaved, with the exception of Colorado, and the fight's not over there. Many states improved their gun laws throughout the rest of the country.

    It's forty states against ten on gun control. But at this point, I want you to continue pushing. I want Bloomingbutt to run more ads. I want Frankenstein and the undead corpse of Lautenberg to demand new bans. Every time your side does that, we gain a little more ground.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Manchin-Toomey bill lost. The next election or two will tell who the real losers are.

      Delete
  3. Mike, I don't recall you opposing Manchin-Toomey because it didn't come with registration, thus making it a useless unenforcable gun law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Unenforceable and useless" is a bit of an exaggeration. Without licensing and registration the effectiveness would be greatly diminished, but not completely. So, I did not oppose it.

      Delete
  4. My apologies for the fact that this comment is only very tangentially related to the subject of the post, but it does have some relation, and it's certainly well in line with the topic of the blog in general

    Anyway, whaddya think, Mikeb, of pardoned felons regaining recognition of their Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms in North Carolina?

    Very progressive, I call it. Needs to go further, of course, with every ex-con, whether pardoned or not, having now paid his debt to society, enjoying the full rights of citizenship (and indeed, the full rights inherent to humanity).

    Still, slow progress is progress nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. I posted it today with my response to your extremist nonsense.

      Delete
    2. . . . your extremist nonsense.

      That doesn't sound like anything I would say. I have always been quite rational and sensible.

      Delete
    3. No more extreme than restoring the right to vote to felons.

      Delete