How many feel that their countries gun laws are too strict...

[Dune]

Gun Shows and Federal Law. Federal gun laws apply equally everywhere; there are no special exemptions for gun shows. Under the Gun Control Act (1968), anyone who "engages in the business" of selling firearms must be licensed, regardless of where he does business. There is no such thing as an "unlicensed dealer," and dealing in guns without a license is a federal felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. In the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986), Congress specifically authorized licensed firearms dealers to conduct business at gun shows.

Many Federal laws place obstacles to criminals getting guns. Under Federal law (and many state laws), felons, illegal aliens, fugitives, drug addicts and several other classes of "prohibited persons" are barred from possessing guns or ammunition. It is also illegal to buy a gun for a prohibited person (called a "straw purchase") or provide a gun to a prohibited person by any other means. These are felony offenses punishable by 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000.

Gun Shows and the National Instant Check System. Congress has provided tens of millions of dollars to upgrade state criminal history records for entry into the National Instant Check System (NICS), which is used to screen retail gun purchasers. Federal law requires dealers to always screen gun customers through NICS. They must do so at gun shows, just as they would anywhere else.

Congress has specifically addressed gun sales by people who are not dealers. Under Federal law, a person who is not a dealer may sell a gun to another non-dealer for the purpose of "improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection." This is true wherever the sale occurs, and only a tiny percentage of such sales occur at shows. As noted, however, to "engage in the business" of dealing in firearms requires a federal license.

Few criminals get guns at gun shows. The most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) survey of imprisoned felons found that less than 1% obtained guns from gun shows. (Firearms Use by Offenders, Nov. 2001). The previous BJS survey found that only 1.7% of federal prison inmates got their guns from gun shows. (Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98, June 2000) An earlier National Institutes of Justice study found that less than 2% obtained guns from shows. (Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities, Dec. 1997) According to these reports, most criminals get guns from theft or burglary, the black market, or friends and family members.


Posted: 1/21/2004

By Jim Pate

Gun shows in the United States--as John McCain and the former Clinton Administration staffers at Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) explain it--have suddenly become an irresistible magnet for foreign terrorists.

These terrorists regularly sneak into shows, the McCain/AGS claim goes, to exploit a "loophole" in federal law and buy large numbers of guns. This hogwash is being sold to the American people in a slick ad campaign funded by New York City billionaire Andrew McKelvey.

McKelvey founded AGS and spends millions every year in a personal crusade to restrict Second Amendment rights. Operating with unaccountability, his agenda includes efforts to abolish gun shows, federally regulate all gun sales between private citizens and register all law-abiding gun owners.

Despite all McKelvey`s expensive ads, the gun show "loophole" argument ignores the fact that federal laws already prevent criminals--and that word includes terrorists--from going to gun shows and buying firearms, everywhere in the country.

And, despite the ad blitz, the idea that Osama bin Laden and other terrorist bosses overseas arm themselves with small arms bought in the U.S. makes as much sense as Alaskans having ice flown in from Florida.

Peshawar, Pakistan, located only a few miles from Afghanistan`s busiest border crossing, is one of the world`s most notorious cash-and-carry gun markets. Machine guns are common. One can send a 12-year-old boy with a few $20 bills to the bazaar to buy an AK-47 as easily as an American mom sends her child out for a loaf of bread.

Hand grenades are available, as are surface-to-air missiles and rocket launchers. Leftover U.S.-made Stinger missiles from the CIA-sponsored war against the Soviet occupation of

Afghanistan have moved through the same black market.

Unlike U.S. gun shows--where licensed dealers must do the same background checks and fill out the same federal forms as they do when selling a gun in a store--Asia`s gun markets are infamous for cash-and-carry transactions. Anyone of any age who has the money can buy, no questions asked.

This begs the obvious question: If Middle East terrorists can get more guns--not to mention more powerful weapons--faster and cheaper at home, why would they risk coming all the way to the United States to stand out like sore thumbs at a gun show?

The answer is they wouldn`t. But those who hate gun shows and what they deride as "America`s gun culture" are hoping logic won`t apply as they seek to exploit public fear over the possibility of additional terrorist acts. McCain likely will attach his gun show bill--S.890--as an amendment to other legislation in January, possibly the homeland security bill. In the anxious climate of a wartime home front, its chance of passage is much improved.

"It is critical that NRA members and anyone else who doesn`t want to see gun shows become a thing of the past get to their friends and start working the phones," said Jim Baker, ILA Executive Director. "We don`t have much time. Everyone should let their U.S. Senators know they oppose this cynical attack on our rights."

In a win-at-any-cost zeal to renew attacks on the right to keep and bear arms, the gun-control camp acted quickly in the aftermath of September 11 to exploit the nation`s intense emotional turmoil. Osama bin Laden swiftly replaced the Columbine killers as the talisman by which to substitute emotion for fact in public policy debate.

AGS "fact" sheets deliberately distorted cases of alleged foreign terrorists buying at U.S. gun shows. These "misinformation" sheets have been regurgitated almost verbatim by gullible news reporters.

USA Today trumpeted three cases taken from the AGS releases, including that of Ali Boumelhem, a Michigan resident linked to the terrorist organization Hezbollah. Convicted one day before the September 11 attacks of conspiring to smuggle guns and ammunition to Lebanon, he has become the AGS poster boy in McKelvey`s zeal to spread the lie that gun shows are a steady source of guns for foreign terrorists.

AGS mischaracterized FBI testimony. The bureau, which had Boumelhem, a convicted felon, under surveillance for months prior to his arrest, saw him shopping at three different gun shows in Michigan. He also was seen unloading "weapons and explosives" in Beirut. The implication, of course, was that these were the same items purchased at gun shows in Michigan.

AGS`s source was The Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, which was much more specific about the Beirut sighting than the AGS release. The bulletin reported that Boumelhem was seen "unloading shipments of automatic weapons, explosives, grenades and rocket launchers," which are not sold at gun shows anywhere in this country.

AGS also trotted out the case of Muhammed Asrar, a Texas shop owner from Pakistan who, USA Today reported, "was arrested in an investigation of the September 11 attacks." Omitted was the fact that the probe failed to link Asrar with the terrorist attacks, and there was no indication that he ever shipped guns overseas or bought them for any reason other than personal protection.

"He pleaded guilty to immigration violations and illegal possession of ammunition," the newspaper reported. "The Pakistani store owner said he had bought handguns, rifles and a submachine gun at gun shows since 1994." The report failed to note, however, that submachine guns can`t be bought at gun shows, so if Asar`s claim is true he should have been prosecuted on a more serious charge, violating the National Firearms Act.

Another "terrorist" case AGS cites is that of Conor Claxton, an Irishman from West Belfast, convicted for using a straw buyer at a Florida show to purchase guns that were mailed back to Ireland. Contrary to claims made by AGS and McCain, Claxton, who was sentenced to four years in prison, was nonetheless acquitted of the specific charge of smuggling to the Irish Republican Army.

McCain, McKelvey and their cohorts conveniently fail to mention the most important aspect of each of their examples. In every case, the system worked--the violators were arrested, tried and convicted. Convicted felons face a possible 10-year prison sentence just for walking into a gun show. Federal law already prohibits non-resident and illegal aliens from buying guns.

They may respond that it is the private sales between individuals at gun shows that pose a potential threat from terrorists. But if the goal of would-be terrorists is to procure firearms in quantity, it would be difficult to do so through private transactions unless the seller was willing to commit a federal felony by "engaging in the business" without a license.

In the end, the deceit behind this campaign to further restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens serves more than a corrupt political agenda. By extension, it lends support to those who hate America`s freedom and seek to destroy our way of life.


Posted: 2/15/2003

[Tilt]

UK .................Not strict enough IMO


penalty for illegal possesion of a firearm is far too low.

[Bodhi]

WTG Dune,  You saved me the time of cutting and pasting those articles as well.



For the record US Gun Laws are bordering on being blatantly unconstitutional.  Punish the law breakers and not the law abiders.  This country is not founded on punishing all to stop a few.

[Frogm4n]

um you still have the right to own firearms do you not? how are the gun laws as they are now on the border of not being unconstitutional?
Sorry for questioning your ability to be a supreme court judge.

[Thud]

They are reasonable and sufficiently effective in practice.

[FUNKED1]

There needs to be a concealed carry constitutional amendment.

[TPIguy]

um you still have the right to own firearms do you not?

Yes but, there are laws that limit the type of firearms we can own and what type of modifications we can do to them. Now, that may not seem like a big deal. But, there are people trying to limit that even further. If they get thier way, its not unreasonable to believe that one day ALL fire arms could be illegal.

Its a simple matter of giving an inch and they take a foot. Eventually there won't be any thing left. And that dosen't have to stop with firearms. That can happen to ANY of our rights, if we let it.

That said, alot of the current gun laws don't make much sense. take the 94 AWB for example. Does a bayonette, flash hider, pistol grip or folding stock make a weapon more deadly? No, so why are we limited as to the use of those on a fire arm? Because the people making the laws, and those that support them don't know anything about firearms.

People who don't know jack about guns are screwing the rest of us over with thier ignorance.

[aknimitz]

The gun show loophole goes something like this:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone in the business of selling guns to obtain a federal firearms license (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not "engaged in the business" under the GCA, and thus is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act.

Most all of the vendors at gun shows nowadays, given the liability concerns, are licensed gun dealers, i.e. not within the category of persons targeted by the "Gunshow loophole". As licensed dealers, they are bound by the background check requirements imposed under the GCA.

Clearly there is a problem, but Im not sure how to address it. Should there be legal requirements controlling how an unlicensed individual disposes of his handguns? If I want to sell my 9mm pistol to my neighbor, should I be burdened with obtaining background check forms, figuring out how to submit them, where to submit them, etc? Maybe ... maybe not. I can tell you for sure I dont think the government has a right to know where each and every handgun in the country is - thats a little too much info for big brother. If we had some type of legislation that required purging of background check results that were approved, I might buy on to that - but any records that are kept and/or archived - no thanks.

Nim

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
um you still have the right to own firearms do you not? how are the gun laws as they are now on the border of not being unconstitutional?
Sorry for questioning your ability to be a supreme court judge.

Bored today froggy?

I will tell you how it is unconstitutional... The 2nd Ammendment clearly states that the citizen's of this country have the right to bare arms.  It does NOT state that we can not bear arms that fall under AW classifications, or how big, how small, how many rounds it can carry.  That is an added concept by liberals to further limit the rights of a law abiding citizen.  Furthermore, the constitution does not provide for the requirement of the registration of a firearm, which is mandatory in all 50 states (you register the weapon when you purchase it from a dealer) this can be gotten around by purchasing from individuals, but, it is still wrong.  I did not write it, but I have read it, and it bothers me that these little quirks are added to a system that is finewithout a liberal pansy judge or politician changing it to garner favor or votes.

[Stoned Gecko]

There are some laws that I agree with, and some that I don't.

I have no problem with requiring all firearms to be registered. I have no problem with requiring trigger locks. I have no problem with requiring transported firearms to be unloaded and in a locking case. And I have no problem with requiring a training course for a conceal carry permit. Those are all pretty much common sense anyway.

I do have a problem with having to jump through hoops to get a conceal carry permit. To sum it all up, why not? Why take away a person's ability to defend him/herself? No matter how great the local PD is, they will NOT prevent any crime from occurring. They will only show up after the fact to call you an ambulance and take your statement. This is not meant to be a negative statement about law enforcement. After all, until we invent pre-crime, they can't magically know what's happening and where.

I also have an issue with restrictions on what kind of gun can be owned. Let people get what they want. If I wanna keep an AK-47 in my house, why shouldn't I be able to? I also wanted to get the .50 cal rifle ... now I can't.

[lazs2]

I am ok with carrying openly when not in cities but concealed carry is far more polite and..... effective.   concealed carry works because the bad guys don't know who is armed.

I say less restrictions on guns but higher penalties for crimes commited with guns.

lazs

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by lazs2
I say less restrictions on guns but higher penalties for crimes commited with guns.

lazs

How about NO RESTRICTIONS on firearms, and severe penalties for crimes committed with them.

[lazs2]

fine with me bodhi... I believe that a bank robber should have his gun handed back to him (along with HIS voting rights) when he is released from prison.... If he isn't ready to have a firearm then he isn't ready to be released.

one exception... mentaly defective persons and foreigners shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.

lazs

[capt. apathy]

um you still have the right to own firearms do you not? how are the gun laws as they are now on the border of not being unconstitutional?

the second amendment doesn't say "the right to bear arms shall not be abolished",  it says the right of the citizen to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed .  that is how the laws are unconstitutional.

basicly it says that I should have free access to arms and the right to cary them without gov't interferance or regulation.  unless of course, like any other right I've done something ilegal to cause my right to be forefit.

registering your guns is not required in most states (no matter how much the news media wants to make it apear that it is).
the first step to taking the guns from the general population is to create a list of where they all are, so registering guns is a bad idea.

it's a good reason to buy used guns. although I can easily pass a background check (and have passed a few for various jobs. not the kind where they look up paperwork but the kind where the FBI talks to your niegbors), I won't buy a new gun because I don't believe the gov't has a right to a list of my weapons and private sales are a legal way I can protect my rights.

[Tilt]

Seems to me that whenever this issue is debated in a US context it comes down to the citizens rights enshrined in the constitution of the United States of America and a perception of what freedom means to folk.

Its clear that many in the US hold the gun dear and many more hold their right to own one dearer still.

All the rest is BS really.

Its a right, a privilage that US folk (in general) enjoy and wish to maintain. In a democracy that is the right of it.

I will however go back to a statement I made in such a debate many years ago which still holds true.

This right or privilage, or call it what you will, has a cost and that cost is measured in human lives. We may all debate the number of lives or the value of lives or the acceptability of the cost but its unit of measure is always the same.