GarandFan Posted February 4, 2009 at 01:20 PM Share Posted February 4, 2009 at 01:20 PM If I were Gillibrand ... brand new to the Senate, I would not much appreciate the Brady Campaign for trying to make me the centerpiece of their agenda. She says no, and she is open game for all the gun-haters. She says yes, and she is open game for all the gun rights supporters. And remember ... she's in New York. I hope she choses substance over games. This is a game, and the rules they use are not nice. It is a test to see what Gillibrand will do, even before she has a chance to establish herself. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/brady-...2009-02-03.html Brady Campaign calls on Gillibrand to sponsor gun-control bill By Mike Soraghan Posted: 02/03/09 07:12 PM [ET] A gun-control group is calling on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to sponsor a gun-control bill to show that she’s evolving from being a favorite of the gun lobby to a true blue-state senator. “She’s saying she realizes that she represents a statewide constituency,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “One way she could prove she has evolved is to push this issue.” Helmke said his group is seeking a meeting with Gillibrand to ask her to support legislation to require background checks on gun sales at gun shows, commonly referred to by activists as “closing the gun-show loophole.” A message left with Gillibrand’s office was not returned Tuesday afternoon. Gillibrand’s pro-gun views and “A-rating” from the National Rifle Association were a plus in holding a gun-toting New York district as a Democrat. But they drew protests as soon as Gov. David Paterson (D) selected her to replace now-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Anti-gun groups and liberal bloggers protested the appointment. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) threatened to take Gillibrand on in a primary or to support a gun-control backer who would challenge the new senator. McCarthy has a deep personal connection to the issue, having lost her husband to a shooting massacre in 1993. But Gillibrand has maintained that she understands that her constituency changed considerably when she changed jobs. Helmke initially called Gillibrand’s record “disappointing.” In a blog post Tuesday about changing views on gun issues, he suggested that Gillibrand could make up a lot of ground by co-sponsoring the gun-show legislation. In an interview, McCarthy said that simply sponsoring a bill would not satisfy her. She would want to see Gillibrand work with fellow senators to build the support needed to pass one. “I think it would be terrific” for Gillibrand to sponsor gun-show background checks, McCarthy said. “There’s much more to do than introducing a bill. We’re a year away. A year is a long time.” Purchases at gun stores from licensed dealers require a criminal background check. But some gun-show purchases are considered private sales, similar to a sale between neighbors or friends, and as such do not require a background check. Gun-show background checks became an issue after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, which left dead 12 students, one teacher and the two gunmen. Three of the four guns used were purchased at a gun show by one of the shooter’s friends, who said she wouldn’t have done so if she’d had to give her name. Colorado passed a gun-show background-check bill in a statewide referendum by an overwhelming vote. But on the national level, the legislation stalled in a Republican-controlled Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted February 4, 2009 at 04:54 PM Share Posted February 4, 2009 at 04:54 PM Well I'm not sure I understand this "gun show loophole".thing.The last pistol that I got at a gun show,I traded guns.The dealer took my trade-in and I still had to do the background check AND wait 3 days.Do the anti's think that there is alot of "dealing" out in the parking lot? And isn't it still legal for private sales....or is that the heart of their complaint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glide Posted February 4, 2009 at 05:31 PM Share Posted February 4, 2009 at 05:31 PM as far as I know private transfor only requires both people to have and provide a FOID card but you still have to have waiting period and no background check called in. Maybe others that know for sure could answer better but I think that is all that is needed unless one of the people are dealers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Guardian Posted February 4, 2009 at 07:43 PM Share Posted February 4, 2009 at 07:43 PM If I were Gillibrand ... brand new to the Senate, I would not much appreciate the Brady Campaign for trying to make me the centerpiece of their agenda. She says no, and she is open game for all the gun-haters. She says yes, and she is open game for all the gun rights supporters. And remember ... she's in New York. I hope she choses substance over games. This is a game, and the rules they use are not nice. It is a test to see what Gillibrand will do, even before she has a chance to establish herself. Weren't we planning on playing a similar game with Governor Quinn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted February 4, 2009 at 08:32 PM Share Posted February 4, 2009 at 08:32 PM If I were Gillibrand ... brand new to the Senate, I would not much appreciate the Brady Campaign for trying to make me the centerpiece of their agenda. She says no, and she is open game for all the gun-haters. She says yes, and she is open game for all the gun rights supporters. And remember ... she's in New York. I hope she choses substance over games. This is a game, and the rules they use are not nice. It is a test to see what Gillibrand will do, even before she has a chance to establish herself. Weren't we planning on playing a similar game with Governor Quinn? Yeah, but we are the GOOD guys so that makes it ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w00dc4ip Posted February 5, 2009 at 02:48 AM Share Posted February 5, 2009 at 02:48 AM Well I'm not sure I understand this "gun show loophole".thing.The last pistol that I got at a gun show,I traded guns.The dealer took my trade-in and I still had to do the background check AND wait 3 days.Do the anti's think that there is alot of "dealing" out in the parking lot? And isn't it still legal for private sales....or is that the heart of their complaint?They want to eliminate the concept of private sales, not close a "loophole". The legislation they are proposing would require every transfer of ownership of a firearm to go through an FFL, therefore requiring a background check and waiting period. The reason for this that they don't tell you is the FFL would be able to charge a fee, thus making purchasing a firearm more expensive amd amything that makes firearm ownership more expensive is good to the Brady Bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossua Posted February 5, 2009 at 06:43 PM Share Posted February 5, 2009 at 06:43 PM If I were Gillibrand ... brand new to the Senate, I would not much appreciate the Brady Campaign for trying to make me the centerpiece of their agenda. She says no, and she is open game for all the gun-haters. She says yes, and she is open game for all the gun rights supporters. And remember ... she's in New York. I hope she choses substance over games. This is a game, and the rules they use are not nice. It is a test to see what Gillibrand will do, even before she has a chance to establish herself. Weren't we planning on playing a similar game with Governor Quinn? Yeah, but we are the GOOD guys so that makes it ok. [rant]Sadly enough you are 110% correct there. I'm becoming more and more worried about what is going to happen in the near future. There are big things in motion, and I don't understand why yet. Hopefully the legislature doesn't just laugh at NH's Resolution. I think that resolution might be our salvation, but we need to work to make it happen. The Federal Government has been usurping State powers for far too long. Our very constitution is being ripped to shreds. It was ripped to shreds long ago with misguided amendments, but the things Obama wants to do are insidious. The worst part is he is tearing the country apart to applause. I don't understand how people can hand over the most free country in the world to marxists and be so damned happy about it. We have had our constitutional protections stripped away, the federal government can do whatever the heck it wants and we have next to nothing to say about it. Democracy will work for these people until the people they swindle with their lies and half truths realize what is being done to them, then we will fall into chaos and great peril. I believe we have front row seats for the end of the USA as we know it. The parallels to the rise of fascist dictatorships are frightening. [/rant] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted February 5, 2009 at 09:50 PM Share Posted February 5, 2009 at 09:50 PM Well I'm not sure I understand this "gun show loophole".thing.The last pistol that I got at a gun show,I traded guns.The dealer took my trade-in and I still had to do the background check AND wait 3 days.Do the anti's think that there is alot of "dealing" out in the parking lot? And isn't it still legal for private sales....or is that the heart of their complaint? The legislation they are proposing would require every transfer of ownership of a firearm to go through an FFL, therefore requiring a background check and waiting period. The reason for this that they don't tell you is the FFL would be able to charge a fee, thus making purchasing a firearm more expensive amd amything that makes firearm ownership more expensive is good to the Brady Bunch. Yeah,that's about how I had it figuered.But I was giving them credit for wanting to stop straw purchases to people who shouldn't have guns.Stupid on my part,huh? All they really want is to have to go through a FFL,so they have a record of the sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Posted February 6, 2009 at 02:40 PM Share Posted February 6, 2009 at 02:40 PM Well I'm not sure I understand this "gun show loophole".thing.The last pistol that I got at a gun show,I traded guns.The dealer took my trade-in and I still had to do the background check AND wait 3 days.Do the anti's think that there is alot of "dealing" out in the parking lot? And isn't it still legal for private sales....or is that the heart of their complaint? The legislation they are proposing would require every transfer of ownership of a firearm to go through an FFL, therefore requiring a background check and waiting period. The reason for this that they don't tell you is the FFL would be able to charge a fee, thus making purchasing a firearm more expensive amd amything that makes firearm ownership more expensive is good to the Brady Bunch. Yeah,that's about how I had it figuered.But I was giving them credit for wanting to stop straw purchases to people who shouldn't have guns.Stupid on my part,huh? All they really want is to have to go through a FFL,so they have a record of the sale. The FFL can only charge $10 for the transfer too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted February 6, 2009 at 05:50 PM Share Posted February 6, 2009 at 05:50 PM All they really want is to have to go through a FFL,so they have a record of the sale. There you go! Now you're catching on and thinking like the anti's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted February 8, 2009 at 09:40 AM Author Share Posted February 8, 2009 at 09:40 AM Exactly. 4473 forms are de facto registration of firearms. By passing a ban on all private transfers (the gun-show loophole is just deceptive, hyperbolic name for a means to this temporary end), the system filters more and more firearms through the de facto registration scheme. Along the process, 4473s can be demanded from FFLs and nationalized databases can be constructed and used to go after the owners of those arms. When the gun controllers say the slippery slope has been eliminated, they are flatly lying through their teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctman800 Posted February 8, 2009 at 03:40 PM Share Posted February 8, 2009 at 03:40 PM [All they really want is to have to go through a FFL,so they have a record of the sale.] Let us not forget, in Illinois the instant check goes through the ISP who are not required to destroy the records as is required of the federal check. Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.