McCain and the Gun Show Loophole

[Al Norris]

Continued from the previous thread.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. California has the state equivalent of this bill and we have plenty of gun shows.

Really?

Do promoters in CA have to purchase a license for the show? Do promoters have to turn over a list of all venders (whether selling guns or not) 30 days before the show, 72 hrs before the show and 5 days after the show? Do background checks have to be run on anyone selling and purchasing a firearm? Does a promoter have to turn over a detailed list of sellers, buyers and firearms sold within 5 days of the close of the show? Does the promoter face criminal sanctions should any of the foregoing steps not be taken?

That's what S890 entailed.

As far as I know, McCain has never said that he wants anything different. So nowadays, McCain says, ""I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as the transfer between a father and son or husband and wife."... The exception to this quote are those private sales at gun shows.

What we don't know, and no one including McCain, has outright said, does he want the same type of regulation as he co-sponsored in S890? If he does, then no promoter will be willing to risk fines and jail, and gun shows will die.

On this, we have nothing to forsee the future, except by past actions.

Also currently, such regulation is a State issue. Once the Feds pass such legislation (this necessarily assumes the courts will agree that the Feds have this power), history tells me that there will be more legislation to regulate all aspects of firearms sales. What was a State issue, will become a Federal Commerce Clause issue (see Raich).

Again, we have nothing by which to forsee the future, except by past actions.

 

[benign.neglect]

I think part of the problem with this issue is that everyone, even McCain supporters, know this is the wrong side of the issue for McCain to be on. The fact that McCain was so bold as to bring the issue up again is a bad sign. There was no reason for him to address the issue at the NRA speech.

The twisted attempt by some McCain supporters to spin closing the gun show loophole into a good thing is really a sign of desperation.

 

[thallub]

The twisted attempt by some McCain supporters to spin closing the gun show loophole into a good thing is really a sign of desperation.

+1

I'm been a Republican for 50 years and McCain will not get my vote. Ain't playing the lesser evil game any more. If Juan McAmnesty is the best the RNC can do they can go to hades.

 

[publius42]

Antipitas, with all due respect, does your thread title have to use the propaganda terms of our enemies? There is no "gun show loophole" as we all know. That's a term the media uses to try to confuse the public into thinking that gun dealers do not do background checks at gun shows, and it has worked altogether too well.

Can't you change this one to "McCain and private gun sales" or something a bit more accurate?

 

[44 AMP]

I read the interview in the American Rifleman

And did not come away pleased. McCain is in no way our friend, he is just the least agressive of our enemies. About the so called "gun show loophole", basically he ducked the question. He is, apparently in favor of allowing our children to inherit our guns without a background check or haveing to go through an FFL dealer, but he made no statement about anything beyond that.

The simple fact is that ALL the candidates would happily sign into law any bill that did away with all sales of guns without govt. involvement. I personally do not find this to be a desirable thing.

 

[finity]

In case anyone is interested in reading a plain english interpretation of the McCain- Lieberman "Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001":

http://www.gunlaws.com/evenworse.htm

 

[Ruger4570]

So what do we do? Not vote at all and most likely give the POTUS status to the Democrats that have Vowed to take our guns away and raise taxes on most people,,, or,, Vote for McCain (choke, choke, swallow) and HOPE he really won't try to take our guns away?
Unfortunatly there are 2 Proven Democrats running for office and one Wanna be Democrat running. :barf: :barf: :barf:

 

[Al Norris]

finity, I read the original proposed legislation. I'm not a novice at this. I think you'll find my first real paragraph to STAGE 2 to be a brief, but not inclusive, encapsulation of some of the main points of the bill.

publius, we are not the general public. The majority of us responding to this thread (and the now closed original) know quite well that there is no such animal, as a gun show loophole. However, smilies (sarcastic or otherwise) won't show in titles!

 

[finity]

finity, I read the original proposed legislation. I'm not a novice at this. I think you'll find my first real paragraph to STAGE 2 to be a brief, but not inclusive, encapsulation of some of the main points of the bill.

Sorry, that post wasn't directed at you. I just thought it would be helpful for anyone who hadn't heard of/read it before (like me as of a couple of weeks ago ). I know there were several on the original thread who knew nothing about this bill & its implications for gun shows.

 

[RDak]

Anti: I can only guess that McCain was not for all the details in that draconian bill? But he did sponsor it. Hopefully, in any final bill the draconian parts of that old bill would be weeded out. But it is a PROBLEM! Those were his views apparently because he was being a jerk and angry with the gun rights people IMHO.

You bring up a very good point but I assume McCain is more in line (i.e., now) with what Michigan has had for years - a NICS check must be performed at the time of the gunshow gun sale. Same procedures and rules as at a gunshop with a FFL.

But this is only an assumption. I seem to remember years ago that he wanted NICS checks, (i.e., no more, no less). I'll try to find something on this. Why he veered off from what I am hoping he believes, appears to be child like vindictiveness IMHO?

What I don't like about, what I assume to still be his position, is private sales, involving non-relatives, will have to go through a FFL.

finity: Here's a good article discussing what Anti is saying. (Anti is correct that we don't know the extent to which McCain agrees with Kopel's listing, and interpretation, of any new proposed regulation.)

FWIW, Anti's concerns are valid IMHO.

Here's the old bill link:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/IP/gunshows2.htm

And finity, Anti is totally correct IMHO, when he opines that McCain gets angry with people and will propose bills to punish them. I mean, that's what his political contribution bill did and what the gunshow loophole bill would have done if it had passed.

Those two bills were in direct contradiction to the conservative philosophy IMHO.

 

[Old Timer]

If Juan McAmnesty is the best the RNC can do they can go to hades.

The problem is they won't go to hades. They will go to Obama. To not vote for the lesser of two evils is tantamount to voting for the greater of two evils.

 

[finity]

I guess from the replies i 've been getting that i am not being understood. or maybe i'm not understanding.

I think we are in agreement that the McCain bill would be a huge detriment to ftf sales, gun shows or not.

I hope McCain has changd his views but as has been said "past performance is indicative of future intentions"

 

[publius42]

Also currently, such regulation is a State issue. Once the Feds pass such legislation (this necessarily assumes the courts will agree that the Feds have this power), history tells me that there will be more legislation to regulate all aspects of firearms sales. What was a State issue, will become a Federal Commerce Clause issue (see Raich).

I think it's safe to assume the courts would agree that the federal government has the power to regulate private gun sales under the commerce clause. After all, the Stewart case was about possession (not sale) of home made machine guns, and that possession was deemed to affect interstate commerce enough to trigger the commerce clause power.

We've come a long, long way, and there is no way that liberals are going to attack that fountainhead of federal power, the commerce clause, at this point. Conservatives might, but the Raich case made it clear that doing so would be "pro-drug" so that possibility has "snowflake in hell" status as well.

What would James Madison say? Here's what he did say:

13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15 James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell


For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

We'll return to that understanding of the commerce clause as soon as we pack the government with libertarians, so don't hold your breath.

 

[Al Norris]

I fully agree, publius.

I would love the Court to look at Wickard again, but I won't hold my breath.

Further, the whole idea of both the Congress and the Court that holds that something (like a firearm), once it enters interstate commerce to be always in commerce is nonsense.

Unfortunately, I don't believe we will ever see a reversal on either Wickard or a change in the definition of things in interstate commerce. Government does not give back power that it usurps.

Hence my fears on the topic of FTF transactions involving firearms.

 

[publius42]

Further, the whole idea of both the Congress and the Court that holds that something (like a firearm), once it enters interstate commerce to be always in commerce is nonsense.

Actually, Wickard's wheat and Raich's cannabis and Stewart's guns never entered commerce at all.

The closest by far was Wickard, who was participating in a federal price support subsidy program. He grew all he was allowed to grow under the program rules, then grew some extra for his own use. His "own use" included feeding livestock he was raising for sale. That would obviously affect the amount of wheat he might sell. If every farmer did it, Congress' efforts to control interstate commerce by subsidizing above-market prices could be undermined.

Let's just pause at this point for a Jefferson quotation:

“Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” Thomas Jefferson

OK, back to the Wickard story... From these grew the "substantial effects" test and the "aggregation" principle. If your possession or use of something you made will substantially affect your behavior in the marketplace, and if there are many others like you who might aggregate into a collective market force, then the thing you made affects interstate commerce and is subject to federal regulation, whether or not you intend to sell it.

 

[STAGE 2]

Do promoters in CA have to purchase a license for the show?

I believe so.

Do promoters have to turn over a list of all venders (whether selling guns or not) 30 days before the show, 72 hrs before the show and 5 days after the show?

Not positive but I don't believe so.

Do background checks have to be run on anyone selling and purchasing a firearm?

Yes.

Does a promoter have to turn over a detailed list of sellers, buyers and firearms sold within 5 days of the close of the show? Does the promoter face criminal sanctions should any of the foregoing steps not be taken?

No and possibly.

As far as I know, McCain has never said that he wants anything different. So nowadays, McCain says, ""I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as the transfer between a father and son or husband and wife."... The exception to this quote are those private sales at gun shows.

Well, these two statements are in conflict. Like I said before, whether this is his honest opinion, or is just political double speak is up to anyone to decide.

What we don't know, and no one including McCain, has outright said, does he want the same type of regulation as he co-sponsored in S890? If he does, then no promoter will be willing to risk fines and jail, and gun shows will die.

And as I said before, there are ways around this including liability waivers and such. Granted there will be people who won't want to bother with this and leave but there will be others who will take advantage of this.

Again, we have nothing by which to forsee the future, except by past actions.

True. Don't get me wrong, McCain hasn't done anything to make reasonable minds comfortable on this issue. However in the bigger picture McCain is the winner by a country mile on the issue of guns in general.

Using this as a basis to choose (or not choose) a candidate kind of misses the forest for the trees.

 

[mountainclmbr]

How can you enforce background checks for ftf sales unless you have full gun registration? I suspect this is the real goal. And full registration is required before full confiscation. You just need "reasonable" sounding explanations for each incremental step except for the very last "confiscation" step.

 

[benign.neglect]

Stage 2, no one here thinks Obama is better on the gun issue. Come on.

 

[STAGE 2]

How can you enforce background checks for ftf sales unless you have full gun registration? I suspect this is the real goal. And full registration is required before full confiscation. You just need "reasonable" sounding explanations for each incremental step except for the very last "confiscation" step.

Requiring a background check for a firearms purchase is not registration. registration is registration.

Stage 2, no one here thinks Obama is better on the gun issue. Come on.

So then whats the beef? McCain isn't the perfect candidate, on guns or anything else. Pointing out his imperfections is just restating the obvious.

 

[Oldphart]

"Requiring a background check for a firearms purchase is not registration. registration is registration."

I think we need to remember that we're talking about the same government that has the power to break into your house, search it and your computer hard-drive then leave without telling you they were there. We have all sorts of assurances thet the record of the sale in question is destroyed within 24 hours but do you trust them? I don't.