°
forecast

Gun show bill voted down in Va. Senate committee

RICHMOND

Legislation aimed at requiring criminal-record checks for all firearm transactions at gun shows, including those by private sellers, won't advance this year, but members of a state Senate committee pledged Wednesday to work toward a compromise that could expand background checks on firearm purchases.

The Senate Courts of Justice Committee voted 8-7 Wednesday to kill the legislation. The bill was voted down after committee members on both sides of the issue failed to cement a compromise that would enable private sellers at gun shows to seek background checks on a voluntary basis.

Gun control advocates for years have pressed legislators to pass a law requiring criminal-record checks for all firearm sales at gun shows. Buyers can purchase guns from private sellers at gun shows without submitting to a check. Federally licensed dealers who sell firearms at the same shows must conduct the checks.

Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin County, who initiated the efforts to work out a compromise, promised to continue negotiations and come up with a bill for next year. Stanley said he and other committee members had developed “a working solution in conceptual form” but need more time to work on the legislation.

Under the framework that Stanley described Wednesday, gun show promoters “would create a kiosk or a desk where voluntary checks could occur.”

Stanley said the legislation won’t require private sellers to use the background checks but would contain incentives to encourage them to use the system and make background checks “a normal practice.”

“I was encouraged by both sides’ willingness to sit at the table and discuss these issues openly and try to find a solution,” Stanley said.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Henry Marsh, D-Richmond, asked the committee to hold the bill and give members more time to work toward a compromise this year. But the committee’s chairman, Sen. Thomas Norment, R-James City County, insisted that the panel act on the bill Wednesday.

“I am not of an inclination to continue to drag this on,” Norment said.

Norment was the only Republican on the committee to vote for a revised version of Marsh’s bill, which would have allowed private sellers to consign firearms to federally licensed dealers who can access the database of criminal records. Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke, was the only Democrat on the committee who voted against the bill.

But Edwards, who has been involved in the negotiations, also wanted more time to work on it this year.

“I think everybody will be satisfied once this is done,” said Edwards, who often breaks with his party on gun issues. Activists on both sides of the issue said Wednesday that there is room to compromise.

“I believe he [Stanley] is sincere, and I believe we’ll work on something over the summer,” said Lori Haas, an gun control supporter whose daughter was wounded in the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech.

Philip Van Cleave, president of the pro-gun-rights Virginia Citizens Defense League, said he could support a compromise that makes background checks “totally voluntary” for gun show promoters and private sellers.

Posted to: News Politics State Government Virginia

How to be civil in comments:

 No name-calling, personal insults or threats. No attacks based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. No writing with your Caps Lock on – it's screaming. Keep on topic and under 1500 characters. No profanity or vulgarity. Stay G- or PG-rated. Read the full rules here.

These feel good accomplish

These feel good accomplish nothing bills must stop.

NRA

The NRA...making it easier for criminals to get guns since 1871.

Control freaks

Banning guns and murdering MILLIONS since Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc etc ad nasuem etc.

Go quietly onto the train. We are the government, we are here to help.

Enjoy your ride Chris, I will not be going with you.

Silly right wing nonsense

1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

Guess what? It wasn't the government that killed them. It was the NRA.

200 million

have been killed by their governments.

Would You Please?

...tell the vast audience of Pilot commenters where you obtain your statistics?

'Scuse me?

I suppose you're saying an equivalent of 'Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot' are coming for Americans day after tomorrow, with the order to ... "Go quietly onto the train. We are the government, we are here to help."

I assume you wrote all that strait-faced; yet, in another post you call people "Liberals with their uncontrollable emotions," for wanting to remove SOME guns from the general public because those types of guns have become the go-to weapon desired by people wanting to kill the most people in the least time.

You don't see some hypocrisy there? Look hard, it's clearly there.

Some offenses, such as Newtown cause 'uncontrollable emotions' among civilized people. It's not a bad thing, and often it's useful keeping out anger alive.

Last phrase, last sentence ...

Should have been:

"... and often it's useful in keeping our anger alive."

Sorry, typing too fast.

I'm With Chris

For all the 'Gun-Freaks' out there I have something to say to you:

A day of reckoning is coming. It might not be tomorrow, next week, next month or next year, but it is coming. And every following epidode, and there will be another like Newtown, CT will ensure it happens. But the longer it takes, the more severe the eventual response will be.

Our society is changing as evidenced by politics. After the current generation that grew up watching Ol' Westerns on TV die off, this fasination with guns will be passe.

It's really hard to believe that back in the 1930s when Organized Criminal elements were gunning people down left and right, the NRA was actually advocating strict gun control laws. My o' my, how times have changed.

Your condescension aside

it'll never happen in your lifetime. A recent study by American University - not exactly a collection of "gun freaks" - reveals that a solid majority of high school and college students are considering buying a firearm at some point in their lives. Nearly four in ten say they definitely will, so this "fasination [sic] with guns" isn't going away any time soon, especially if the entertainment and video gaming industries have anything to do about it. There's also the not inconsequential matter of the difficulty repealing the Second Amendment. That whole 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures is quite a high hurdle.

Yes, it is - "That whole 2/3 majority in both houses

" That whole 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures is quite a high hurdle."

Yes, it is.

But, I have a feeling that mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, sisters, brothers, cousins, friends & supporters of dead 6 and 7 year olds have a memory that will eventually render that 'hurtle' scaled.

Guns will never be eliminated, nor should they be, in my opinion; but, semiautomatic weapons with high capacity magazines that allow for a single individual to kill many, many people in a matter of minutes will one day be off-limits for those outside the military and law enforcement to purchase.

It won't stop all gun deaths, but it can cut down on the numbers of dead and injured after a single shooting.

Won't stop all gun deaths?

That's putting it mildly. Less than four percent of all gun murders in 2011 - 323 out of 8,583 - were committed using any kind of rifle, let alone the scary black ones. Banning "military-style assault weapons" is a purely emotional response that allows opportunistic politicians to convince the gullible that they're actually accomplishing something.

You might want to check this out, BTW:

http://grammar.about.com/od/alightersideofwriting/a/Hurdle-And-Hurtle-Glossary.htm

Obviously, I was using 'hurdle'

Obviously, I was using 'hurdle' as a noun just as the initial user used it. You're right - I did type hurtle incorrectly in my sentence. Thanks for the note about it.

My bad

I was the poster who used hurdle originally, so when you put hurtle in single quotes I thought you were correcting me. Apologies.

" Nearly four in ten say they definitely will,"

Hardly a solid majority.

No, but that's who "definitely" will

Sixty percent said they either definitely will or are considering it. That IS a solid majority.

Chris33

Its not the NRA that prevents you from buying a gun, its the law.

911 hijackers and Virginia drivers licenses

The 911 hijackers had VA drivers licenses. After 911 DMV clammed down on law abiding citizens making it harder to get a drivers license.

After Virginia Tech (dead college kids), Sandy Hook (dead 6 year olds), etc. Not change. Why? Virginia Drivers don't have a lobby supported by a manufactor of the product. The biggest contributor to the NRA is not the members but the gun companies.

Gun profits over the safety of our children. That's the NRA way.

PS: There were armed guards in Colorado.

I for one will be joining

I for one will be joining the NRA this week!

1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960

If you own a gun, you or a member of your family is seven times more likely to die of gun violence. Why? Because a gun in the house is much more likely to be used by an angry spouse or depressed teenager to kill themselves or others, than it is to be used for self defense.

Nancy Lanza found this out when her son killed her and two dozen school children in Newtown.

2 million defend their homes, businesses and families

with a firearm each year.

The "7 times" statistic is driven and comes out of the same homes where residents are already 22 times more likely to be murdered in their neighborhood.

There are lies, damned laws and statistics

according to Benjamin Disraeli and/or Mark Twain. Then there are made up statistics. A good example of that is your statement ...

"The 7 times statistic is driven and comes out of the same homes where residents are already 22 times more likely to be murdered in their neighborhood."

No, that is simply not true. The main driver of the heighted danger of guns in the home comes from suicides. Guns are good at what they do and also conducive to impulsive and drunken decisions to end it all. Of the 7x, the authors attribute 5x to suicides. The remaining 2x is due to heightened dangers of successfull homicides and, of course, accidents.

Your comforting little theory that THOSE people are driving the statistics on this is simply wrong.

Whoops

Damned "lies" not "laws".

Have fun with that Freudian slip fellas!

Focus

Let's try passing a budget and controlling spending actually accomplishing something that we sent you there to do. Then put gun control # 2. Make it a priority to understand the mechanics of firearms and some ballistic information so you can pass laws that make sense and maybe make a difference.

2nd Admendment

Don't tread on Me...

Tackle the problem, Mental Health...

No one's treading on you -

Take your flag down because no one wants to tread on you or your rights.

As far as mental health goes, it's not always the mentally ill doing this. some of these folks are just plain mean. So, how should that be dealt with - remove the enabling item that allows for a single person to kill many people in very a short time span.

The guy who goes out and slaughters 20 kids one day didn't give his mother any reason the day before to think he'd do such a thing, plus killing her. When things are going along without any major problems it's very hard for someone to take it upon themselves to turn someone in to the authorities or force them into therapy.

THE GUN, however, CAN be removed from the picture.

Gun control needed.

Really?

How many kids did Timothy McVeigh kill? How many guns did he use? Crazy people kill. They will find a way without guns. Don't disarm the law abiding to make yourself feel good, it wont work.

REALLY!

Mentall illness doesn't commit murder. Mentall illness does not project metal shrapnel at 820 mph.

However, free and easy access to firearms without criminal background checks arms the enemy.

Defend the 2nd Amendment with logic, not crazy talk.

Thank you Ms. Feldman

Cho could have driven a similar vehicle into the middle of a VT football crowd and done much more damage.

I'm sorry to say that chasing "gun control" is only a convenient distraction from the inconvenient truths.

Every person who used a gun

Every person who used a gun on impulse or because of some snap judgement would have spent a year researching how to build bomb, spending thousands of the materials, and a week or so constructing the bomb? The ridiculous of your assertion is astounding.What's next? are you going to try to tell us butter knives are more dangerous and effective than hand guns? The sad part is your absurd argument is widely accepted and oft parroted among your ilk. Gun nuts are unhinged.

typical

Lefties and their uncontolable emotions. Attack me and call me pathetic school yard names.

You can do better. I know it. I believe in you. You should too.

wow, a silly and self

wow, a silly and self righteous deflection?! That was unexpected. But you did not respond so I guess you think every gun crime, absent a gun would be a fertlizer bomb crime. Same same. And, yes. That is unhinged.

Who's trying to disarm you? Not me.

Who's trying to disarm you? Not me. If you have a gun I am not advocating for someone to come and remove it from your abode, any more than I want someone to come and get mine. But, that doesn't mean I fantasize about having a semiautomatic within my reach, either.

Yes, I agree, crazy people kill people. But, so do people who were OK one day and bat-kaka-loony the next day.

Particular types of GUNS are the enablers for people wanting to kill many innocents very quickly all by themselves. The GUNS are the 'common denominator' in most of these latest mass murders.

McVeigh isn't relevant to this conversation about the mentally ill, or about GUN control.

Banning some weapons will cut down on the NUMBERS of dead at one, single site.

After Oklahoma City, Fertilizer dealers and farmers now have

to account very carefully for their Ammonium Nitrate and other explosive fertilzers. They face criminal and civil penalties if THEIR product is used in a McVeigh sort of way and they did not exercise due diligence in how they handled or sold it.

Now, Mrs Feldman, why are gun makers and dealers immune from tighter controls and financial responsibility when over and over again THEIR products end up in the wrong hands and do immeasurable harm? How would YOU feel if the gun used to KILL your son or daughter on the streets of Newark NJ were traced back to a lot of 25 sold profitably by a Norfolk gun dealer to someone who walked in off the street and who no longer had them nor any responsibility to account for where they went?

Golf, this kids' mother was

Golf, this kids' mother was trying to have him committed, but the hoops one must jump thru are a major pain due to the lax mental health system. They are keeping way too many dangerously mental ill people on the streets.

Do you think that it is normal and acceptable behavior for anyone to commit murder?
Wouldn't you say that one would have to be mentally ill to commit murder? If so, then the issue is not guns, it is the mentally ill.

I think we should remove the

I think we should remove the plain mean people! The guns can stay and we can shoot the mean people you refer to.

How do you know he gave his

How do you know he gave his mother no indications the day before? Perhaps she was helping him plan and changed her mind at the last minute. Speculating about her state at he time serves little purpose. Unless she left a journal, we just don't know.

And how can the gun be removed from his picture? That horse is already out of the barn. We could ban all guns tomorrow (which would be my preference), but that will still leave a gun for just about every man, woman and child in the country. Good luck trying to collect those. Our constitution protects the right to own guns. Restricting a currently legal gun would seem to do little to check their availability in the future. And the VA tech shooter didn't use a gun that would be banned.

not a second amendment issue

This is NOT saying you cant own/carry/purchase/shoot a gun, all this is saying is that EVERYONE should have a criminal background check when buying a gun from ANYONE. How is this hurting anyones second amendment rights. How is requiring background checks bad in any way?

The gun manufacturers contribute heavily to the NRA

The gun manufacturers contribute heavily to the NRA, so any restrictions on guns cost the NRA money. Follow the money to the trail of blood that leads from the gun sellers to the NRA.

chris33

You have failed to answer my question from the other reports: Will you post a "Gun Free Zone" sign in your front yard??
Simply answer my question and stop dodging it!!!!

I'll bet Chris33 is a closet

I'll bet Chris33 is a closet NRA member and was a George W. Bush supporter. My bet...Chriss33 is really a Republican.

Maybe like the Washington Post reporter

who was so very anti-gun for years. Then he shot a guy walking past him in his hot tub there in DC one evening.

Anyone remember his name?

Carl Rowan

was his name.

Universal background checks are an anathema to NRA

extremists because they would require gun registration and EVERYBODY knows the government would send in the black helicopters to take those guns once they were registered. The Million dollar man, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, said this week that the ONLY purpose of universal checks would be to either tax or confiscate guns. People, not guns are the problem, he says, but getting effective control of the people side is tyranny.

In short, hundreds of people die each year because the NRA types are too COWARDLY to take the tiny risk that an American Stalin might come for their guns some day - along with about 300mm others. Their paranoia and cowardice would be funny if its consequences weren't so tragic.

Ill informed

Posting "tackle the problem, Mental Health..." shows how ill informed you are. Background checks are intended to identify people with criminal records and/or documented mental health issues that precludes them from buying/owning/possessing a firearm.
I'm a law abiding gun owner. I have firearms for target shooting, hunting and personal protection.
IMHO, anyone who opposes universal background checks doesn't care who buys a gun, and thus exhibits certain mental health problems of their own.

Ill Informed

Obviously you don;t know that background checks look not only for criminal history, but also mental health issues that preclude someone form owing a gun.
DO you really not care who buys a gun? If you do care, there's no logical reason why you wouldn't support universal background checks. Unless, of course, you can't pass one.

Comment deleted

Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Post continued, repeated

Christians

WWJD? Would Christ own a gun?

Early in his career cassius clay was told by a stewardess to put

on his seatbelt. Clay told the stewardess "Superman don't need no seatbelt". The stewardess replied, "Superman don't need no plane either". Clay then put on his seatbelt. As told by Sports Illustrated
WWJD? How about I'll give up my guns when Jesus comes back?

Just a thought

How about this for a compromise: have everyone entering the gun shows submit a background check at the entrance and if the pass, give them some identifier, perhaps like the wristbands used for sales of alcohol. No wristband (or whatever gets used), no sale, including from FFL dealers.

Would that make both sides happy as far as the "gun show loophole" goes?

NO

That is even more intrusive. I have gone to many gun shows with no intention of making a purchase. Why should I have to undergo a background check? Who is going to pay for all of these unnecessary checks? I sure as hell aint.

OK

Apparently I was a little unclear. What I was proposing was a single point for checks for all purchases at the show. If you just want to browse, fine, don't have the check done. However, have a way to identify everyone who is able to make the purchase whether from an FFL dealer or not. No identifier, no sale. Simple enough.

Don't sweat it

The security cameras there already have facial recognition analysis in process.

Gun show bill voted down in Va. Senate committee

'Gun show bill voted down in Va. Senate committee.'

Well, of course it was voted down. Is anyone surprised by that? Virginia wants guns for all, any time, everyday, as many as you like.

Did anyone thing the VA Senate would want to make sure everyone buying a gun in VA has a background check, first?

How can we possibly make a few bucks and supply guns to needy criminals in the states around us, and up and down the eastern seaboard who have stricter gun laws than us, if we have sensible, responsible gun laws, too?

I have a friend that was

I have a friend that was victim of violent gun crime committed by an illegally armed felon, but the situation was thwarted by a citizen with a legally obtained firearm. That person saved lives and took bad guys off the street.

You miss the entire point of not registering guns. Registration is the first step in confiscating guns......the govt needs to find where the guns are, then they will start off with certain ones being illegal and must be turned in, then others will become "illegal ". Do some research, that's exactly how Hitler confiscated guns and killed 20 million Jews. Pol Pot did the same thing.

Those in power fear their subjects with the means to fight off tyranny!!!

Goofbythecupfull sounds like

Goofbythecupfull sounds like he is a bit upset!

Good!

Good!

I can see a problem with "voluntary" background checks.

The problem is that our tort system will make them non-voluntary.

Imagine a crime is committed with a gun you sold to person who seemed OK. SO, a lawyer decides to see if he can make you appear to have been negligent because you could have gotten a background check and did not.

That liability issue will have to be addressed before a truly voluntary system is possible.

Voluntary Background Checks

I agree with you, Doc.
The point is, this idea of voluntary checks was the cowards way out of pushing for universal checks. Of course universal checks wouldn't impact guns bought "on the street" but it would sure stop most of those that none of us want to have guns from getting them any other way but stealing them. Its a common sense approach that will stop many purchases that should never occur, and won't stop any law abiding person from making a purchase. Not to worry...this is likely the ONE new gun law that will get through Congress.

Why

Background checks are ineffective if only a few are done.

The whole point of a background check, particularly if the data base is increased and the mental health issue is more robust, is to make sure the buyer is qualified.

So if a person sells to an acquaintance who actually has a history of criminal or mental problems which would have been discovered had the check been done, then the seller should bear responsibility.

He was negligent in his handling of a firearm just as much as if he had left a loaded gun at a playground.

If the gun lobby's argument that criminals don't follow the law, then the law abiding citizens needs to show they that do and and they are responsible.

Take The Time

It is never good to pass laws right after a crisis or tragic event. Take the time to think it through before acting.

Are You Kidding??

Like these issues haven't been thought through and debated for years.

I agree, now is not the

I agree, now is not the right time, let's wait until we have some more massacres and a few thousand more Americans are gunned down.

Panther

Please..... you seem to want to just argue all the time... go argue at this paper.. in Chicago.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-28/news/chi-chicago-2012-homicide-toll-20121228_1_latest-homicide-500th-homicide-tragic-number

This is WAY worse.... and yet, no one even pays attn to these horrible stats. Over 500 persons, mostly children in less the 365 days.. worst yet, approx 4, no what, 6.. no wait.....7+ persons a week....killed in Chicago, an all Democratic ran City & has heavy gun laws. Watch the trailer on is documentary... A much bigger picture then you might think. http://www.runawayslavemovie.com/home

We lose more Americans in

We lose more Americans in car accidents,we really need to stop anyone from driving or riding in a motor vehicle.It would save thousands and thousands of lives each year.

Comment deleted

Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Personal attack, name calling

Comment deleted

Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Personal attack, name calling

Gun Bills

Well now, you can pass all the "Gun Bills" you want, but the only people it will hurt are the honest law abiding citizens who want to protect their homes and families. Criminals don't give a damn how many "bills" you pass, they will still get their guns on the streets. They don't care about the law, that is why they are "Criminals". It doesn't take a heap of smarts to figure that one out. I support background checks, the NRA, and the 2nd Amendment. I WILL protect my family, my home, and anything that is mine. You enter my home uninvited, and I can promise you that you will leave feet first. God Bless America and those who protect her.

Serious question: How does this hurt law abiding citizens?

Serious question. A law abiding citizen should pass the background check no problem. A criminal should not. So the only one hurt here is the criminal who can no longer buy at a gun show and is forced to buy off the street at a higher cost/lower selection. Is the concern the fact the government will have the record of the background check? I thought the background check makes no indication of the specific intended weapon to purchase. Or do people view this as a domino theory issue in which this is the first step towards greater restrictions? Lots of people here seem upset here, but I would think a law abiding citizen would appreciate the chance to remove criminals from the purchasing group at gun shows.

well said

I have no problem with the background checks. I am not a criminal. I will pass every time. I think the issue most law abiding gun owners have is limiting what weapons I can legally purchase in the future and how many rounds I can carry.

I have no desire to pin my current 30 round mags, I have no desire to only carry 7 round and one chambered (making it 8) in my handguns (NY new law).

You want gun control, fine. Background check guns, mags, ammo. But don't limit what I can purchase or carry. Just an idea I am sure many will disagree.

Thanks for the answer

Appreciate it.

Do yo uhonestly think that it is cheaper for a "criminal"

to buy a gun from a dealer at a show or any retail shop? It is WAY cheaper for them tobuy on the street from the other criminals and not have to pay markup and taxes. I handgun that goes for $700 retail can be had in Norfolk at around $250-$300. Those of you with LEO connections/acquaintences, have them check it out. So don't try to muddy the waters with your made up facts to support your position. If you support it, the do so logically, not from pur emotion. That said, I agree in principle with you and the background check, but lets make sure we're using the right data and facts. Criminals might use a gunshow to buy from a private seller, but even then, its safer to do so on the street from those they already know.

Google Ryan Smith

for an article in today's Wall St. Journal and get an inside look at the glory of an invasion.

More liberal distortion.

"requiring criminal-record checks for all firearm transactions at gun shows, including those by private sellers,"

Since the only sale without a background check is one by a private seller what other transactions are Mr. Sluss refering to?

Guns and Voting

I find it ironically funny, these same "constitution" loving gun supporters want no checks on guns, a tool used to kill 38,000 plus every year but to cast a vote that hurts no one they want id, proof of this and that.

Both are constitutionally protected.

I guess it is true, the "constitution" CHRISTIAN GUN LOVING Right really only pretend to "LOVE" the constitution.

Treat gun ownership and purchases like voter registration and ownership!!!!

Comment deleted

Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Personal attack, name calling

Owning a firearms and citizenship

I find it interesting that you digress to ID laws.

Since owning a firearm is subject to Federal law you must either be a US Citizen or have permanent resident status (green card holder). This is one more instance where proof of ID is required.

I guess you have made your point that ID should be required to vote.

Inflationary Lying

"a tool used to kill 38,000 plus every year"

This number gets larger each time a Liberal uses it in an argument. They started out around 12000 (which is around 3000 too many) and now here we are at 38K.

Amazing what those driven by pure emotion are capable of selling themselves. I wouldn't mind except these genius bleeding hearts have decided they get to choose what the rest of us are allowed to do. Unacceptable.

it's in the physics

For arguments driven by hot air rather than heavy math and application of cogent statistics, they tend to rise from lack of gravity.

Now that's funny

I don't care who you are!

i agree

Background checks for all voters. And poll taxes. Because voting can be harmful.

A vote that doesn't hurt anyone?

Your vote has the potential to do enormous amounts of damage to millions of people.

GUN BAN

Ill give up my guns when you can guarantee that some criminal or crazy person or government entity (Remember Kent State 1970)wont stick a gun in my face and take my money or kill someone.
But as you already know crazy people and criminals will not OBEY any new laws or existing ones.

Private sellers

Of the times I have bought a gun, I go through a background check, if it is from a dealer at a store or a gun show, same paperwork and check is done..I would not buy from someone walking around the show or up and down the street with a sign 'gun for sale'. You never know if the gun has been stolen or mayhbe just found in the trash. I have no problem with private sales, just I want to know who I am buying from. I have bought from private sellers but they were friends of mine and I trusted them and their gun. Backgrounds are for the protection of both the buyer and seller, even the block that asks: "ever been adjudicated mentally defective or commited to a mental institution"

What America can learn from Switzerland

is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership. While America cannot adopt the Swiss model, America can foster responsible gun ownership along more individualistic, American lines. Firearms safety classes in elementary schools, optional marksmanship classes in high schools and colleges, and the widespread availability of adult safety training at licensed shooting ranges are some of the ways that America can make its tradition of responsible gun use even stronger.

Full story.............. http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

The hypocrisy is blinding

when people with secret service details carrying military-grade fully automatic weapons riding in bullet-proof vehicles want to limit one's right to self-protection.

Gun control only for law abiding

Additional gun control measures are not going to stop the flow of guns into the hands of criminals. It will just make for another lucrative underground trade. Have the anti-drug laws stopped the flow of illegal drugs in this country? No. So what solution have a lot of folks proposed? To legalize certain drugs, like marijuana. What makes you think that gun control will be any more effective? The legal system is not even enforcing all of the gun laws on the books now. Let's tighten up on those. And provide better reporting of the mentally ill. All of the recent mass killings were committed by people that others knew had serious issues. Adam Lanza's mother was filing to have him committed.

I support universal background checks

I retired from the Army, am a Patron Life Member of the NRA, I own several firearms, a couple of which gun control advocates want to ban, and I have a Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit. I believe my bona fides as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment speak for themselves. I do, however, support universal background checks. I work in an office with almost all military vets and we all feel the same way, i.e. that one way to ensure the rights of law-abiding gun owners remain strong is to help keep firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them.

a strange world we live in

A few months ago the debate was about it whether it is unfair to require identification in order to exercise a constitutional right. Now the debate is whether we should conduct background checks on people before we allow them to exercise a constitutional right.

There is a fine line between Genius and the insane

In light of all the problems People cause with shooting large amounts of innocence with guns, Has it not become apparent that more gun laws will not keep anyone any safer? unless the relaxation of carry laws were lifted Thus giving an enlighten person of handgun knowledge a chance to defend ones' self as well as others that might be caught in the cross hairs of a "presumed Not Guilty" Trigger person that witnesses, Witness them perform injustices against people like me and you.
Is it not better to provide the earliest means of defense of the masses
Than it for the police to roll in with blazing lights and sirens that may whip up the shooter in a frenzy to complete he or It's Mission??
so there Ladies and Gents of Tidewater I rest My Case

Gun control bill fails in committee

We must identify the congressmen who stand in the way of progress. We can work together to defeat them in the next election.

The School Shooting You Haven't Heard About

Wonder why this never made the news!

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-School-Shooting-You-Haven-t-Heard-About

Really?

You really wonder why this wasn't more widely covered? If you have seen this the answer it patently obvious!

Just so'd you know

Virginia is for lovers, but it is also a place for gun lovers. In 2012, the state known as the gun-running capital of the East Coast was once again at the top of the list of states that “export” firearms to New York. Of the nearly 9,000 guns recovered and traced in New York in 2011, 407 originated in Virginia. Does anyone think that statistic has decreased?

Straw purchases are alive and well, but still people want unregistered private sales both at and away from gun shows.

So seek the truth on this:

If straw purchases are still prevalent, then how would mandatory BG checks stop it? The guy buying the gun will be able to pass the check and the guy he's buying it for, cannot, thus the straw purchse. Mandatory BG checks will not stop a straw purchase so your logic is flawed. It is already illegal to be invovled in these types of transactions so how does increasing the BG for everyone, stop the straw purchase? It doesn't and it can't....Again, use logic to support your position and opinion, but think these things through. I support BG checks, but not becasue of what you state, because it just won't stop those intent on breaking the law anyway. If you want the law, then use the right reasons & don't use bogus info to support it.

Partial cure

The idea of ALL gun sales at gun shows being through a licensed dealer rather than person-to-person, with private sales on consignment rather than hand-to-hand could reduce some of these instances. The best thing they could do, though, would be to reinstate the monthly limit on purchases. I agree there will always be those who get around the laws, but anything that would make that harder is, in my opinion, worth the trouble. You might not be able to plug all the holes in the rowboat, but you could slow the leakage enough to get to shore.

You are factually correct

yet people vote 'thumbs down', not because of any lack of factual reality, but rather they are unhappy whenever truth emerges that reflects negatively on these indefensible practices. One can conclude they support the ability of thugs, druggies, gang members, lunatics and others to have unfettered access to guns. Clearly they have not a shred of social responsibility.

informed opinions, please

How many people with strong opinions about "gun show loophole" have been to a show, and know how they work? Few, I'd say.

I have; I own many guns and oppose some, not all, gun control laws. And I WOULD close the loophole. And I know the facts first hand.

I, a non-dealer, get a table and sell my collection of old hunting guns without checks. No problem.

But next to me is a guy who claims to be a non-dealer selling dozens of barely used weapons he bought to flip. Crims flock to his table b/c he doesn't run checks; unlike the dealers. That guy goes to the next show and is a regular at most shows, selling to anyone. He is the "loophole" and needs to be shut down.

So write the law to allow legit private sales and also stop the abusers.

Equal

protection

these guys are so wrong.

these guys are so wrong.

Next—Ms. Feinstein and her

Next—Ms. Feinstein and her anti-Liberty cohorts;
They are ignorant control freaks—they worst sort.
Their goal: “to dry up the supply” of guns.
It my view—an anti-2nd Jew is devoid of reason.

The horror Nazis inflicted on them was a catastrophe.
One wonders how a Jew holds an anti-gun philosophy.
The adage re forgetting history is in plain view,
I reckon if you are dem—control is what you do.

T Kosciuszko

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. ~ Mr. Jefferson

The NRA does run--they fight

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nra-boycott-kills-outdoors-show-that-banned-assault-weapons/article/2519579#.UQHH__KJJA-

legislature should save me

I have a few ideas about how we could stop all the lawlessness

1. Let's make a law which makes it illegal to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, this way we could eliminate all the deaths caused by drunk drivers each year.
2. Let's make a law simply saying it is illegal to kill another person, that way we could eliminate all the murders.
3. Let's make a law which makes it illegal to drive over the posted safe speed limit, that way we could eliminate the traffic deaths caused by excessive speed.
4. Let's make a law which requires folks to wear their seat belts, that way we could eliminate all the deaths caused by people who don't wear seat belts.

"Men don't want to be free; they want to be safe"

FYI

background checks have nothing to do with registration or permits - they are simply criminal and mental health background checks - some states require registration and/or permits and others do not - a federal registration program of people who have passed a background check is for one purpose and one purpose only, to collect guns from law abiding citizens

Feinstein has already said that she would use that registry to confiscate guns in a compulsary buy back program.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

Daily Deal |  | Promote your business
Partners