We are being negotiated by few GOP Senators

[Jumping Frog]

Yeah........what he said. Just because a few RINO's talk on the left agenda please do not lump the entire GOP as selling America out.
It makes you sound liberal.

Or a Ron Paul fan-boy.

[JALLEN]

Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said Sunday any Senate legislation on gun control that includes a national registry of firearms owners will be a deal breaker.

Coburn is part of the bipartisan Senate panel seeking ways to curb gun violence and that purportedly is about to agree on a proposal to expand background checks to most private gun sales, with national record-keeping still unresolved.

“Absolutely will not be record-keeping of legitimate, law-abiding gun owners,” Coburn told “Fox News Sunday.” “That will kill this bill.”

The potential deal on background checks was reported Saturday by The Washington Post.

.........

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02 ... latestnews

[JJVP]

I joined the NRA.

Senate doesn't count anyway. They have to do something the House would agree to.

There is going to have to be some new restriction passed, so everyone can say, see we did something, we care. It will be called the "Sandy Hook Bill".

I would prefer if we came up with the new restrictions, for the "Sandy Hook Bill", here are my suggestions:

Federal requirement for dead bolt locks in steel frames on all school class room doors. ( I still haven't found out if the Sandy Hook classrooms had locks, but it didn't sound like it.)

No issue with this

Federal requirement to improve mental health record sharing by states into background check. Tie DEA record keeping for certain controlled substances into background check.

Neutral on this

Federal requirement prohibiting private gun sales within five miles of a "gun show". Thus closing the "gun show" loophole the left seem so concerned about.

No way. OK to restrict private sales inside a gun show building unless completed through an FFL. No restrictions on private sales outside the gun show building.

Federal law exempting school employees who are CHL's from any federal law prohibiting campus carry as long as they carry concealed on their person.

There is no federal restriction on campus carry for those with CHL's. Restrictions on campus carry are state restrictions.

Federal standardization on CHL training and testing for all states, but once achieved a 50 state concealed carry by licensed CHL's.

Absolutely NOT. I don't want to give control to the Feds on CHL training and testing. They could come up with training and test requirements that only a SWAT or Navy Seal could pass. Thanks, but no thanks.

A business who bans legal CHL from their property, will be liable for gun violence on their property. A business who does not ban legal CHL will not be liable for actions of a licensed CHL.

No issue with this

That's my list.

See my responses above.

[atticus]

It would be worthwhile to discuss an issue without having to fend off ad hominem attacks of "disingenuous" or "naive." The topic was senate negotiations on universal background checks. I think we can agree that universal background checks are a non-starter because they would have to lead to gun registration. I don't think it's any mystery where the gun confiscation folks stand on gun registration. Can we really afford to give an inch on the gun registration issue? If not, then why negotiate on it? What could we possibly get in return? And no, I am not calling for disunity among gun rights supporters. But I don't want to rally around the idea of giving up on a single 2nd Amendment issue. That's a losing strategy, in my view.

[jimlongley]

. . .

Federal requirement prohibiting private gun sales within five miles of a "gun show". Thus closing the "gun show" loophole the left seem so concerned about.

No way. OK to restrict private sales inside a gun show building unless completed through an FFL. No restrictions on private sales outside the gun show building.

See my responses above.

I can't agree with that. Although many treat gun shows as merely flea markets, where nothing but buying and selling goes on, there are many interesting exhibits at them. A couple of years ago I met R.V. Burgin at one, and got a signed copy of his book, and have seen a lot of other interesting presentations at them, such as the time I found a 25th Infantry history buff doing a talk and she actually knew of my great-grandfather (but she's still wrong about the era of his hat pin.) There is also a lot of "horse trading" that goes on, private person to private person. Although the greater amount of traffic is buying and selling, there are the exhibits and presentations that still qualify them as a show, and if I decide, while there, to buy that old collector's old Mauser, it's none of the government's business where or when I do it.

Adding a requirement that EVERY gun transaction within the building, or within five miles, had to have a check, or it was prohibited, would ruin gun shows for me and a lot of other people. I don't go to them with the intention of buying anything (well, ok, sometimes I find good deals on bulk ammo) but if I do want to buy, and if it's not from a dealer, then I don't want the hassle of running a check or leaving the building, and if I find a buyer for my .32NAA while I am just wandering, then I don't want to have to run a check or leave the building to do it.

It has already been shown that the current check system has little or no effect on criminals, and there is no reason to expect that expanding the scope will advance the effectiveness. The problem is we are falling prey to the anti-gun nuts' own thinking. They don't want to admit that a law that does nothing should be discarded, they operate on the principle that just a little more regulation will work, eating the elephant one bite at a time, and if we let them pass just this one little thing, that's one more bite out of the still living elephant by the gun grabbing vultures.

[Bob in Big D]

Why do we have to negotiate new laws when the laws currently on the books are not enforced?
If you want to negotiate something then negotiate how they are going to disarm criminals without affecting law abiding citizens.
The left is chipping away at the 2A one baby step at a time!

[JJVP]

. . .

Federal requirement prohibiting private gun sales within five miles of a "gun show". Thus closing the "gun show" loophole the left seem so concerned about.

No way. OK to restrict private sales inside a gun show building unless completed through an FFL. No restrictions on private sales outside the gun show building.

See my responses above.

I can't agree with that. Although many treat gun shows as merely flea markets, where nothing but buying and selling goes on, there are many interesting exhibits at them. A couple of years ago I met R.V. Burgin at one, and got a signed copy of his book, and have seen a lot of other interesting presentations at them, such as the time I found a 25th Infantry history buff doing a talk and she actually knew of my great-grandfather (but she's still wrong about the era of his hat pin.) There is also a lot of "horse trading" that goes on, private person to private person. Although the greater amount of traffic is buying and selling, there are the exhibits and presentations that still qualify them as a show, and if I decide, while there, to buy that old collector's old Mauser, it's none of the government's business where or when I do it.

Adding a requirement that EVERY gun transaction within the building, or within five miles, had to have a check, or it was prohibited, would ruin gun shows for me and a lot of other people. I don't go to them with the intention of buying anything (well, ok, sometimes I find good deals on bulk ammo) but if I do want to buy, and if it's not from a dealer, then I don't want the hassle of running a check or leaving the building, and if I find a buyer for my .32NAA while I am just wandering, then I don't want to have to run a check or leave the building to do it.

It has already been shown that the current check system has little or no effect on criminals, and there is no reason to expect that expanding the scope will advance the effectiveness. The problem is we are falling prey to the anti-gun nuts' own thinking. They don't want to admit that a law that does nothing should be discarded, they operate on the principle that just a little more regulation will work, eating the elephant one bite at a time, and if we let them pass just this one little thing, that's one more bite out of the still living elephant by the gun grabbing vultures.

I totally agree with you. However, if we were forced to pass a law to "close the gunshow loophole" then a law that only controls what happens INSIDE a gun show would be the maximum I would support.

If it was up to me there would be no FFL's, no 4473, no NICS. We survived for 200+ years without any of those.

[jimlongley]

. . .

Federal requirement prohibiting private gun sales within five miles of a "gun show". Thus closing the "gun show" loophole the left seem so concerned about.

No way. OK to restrict private sales inside a gun show building unless completed through an FFL. No restrictions on private sales outside the gun show building.

See my responses above.

I can't agree with that. Although many treat gun shows as merely flea markets, where nothing but buying and selling goes on, there are many interesting exhibits at them. A couple of years ago I met R.V. Burgin at one, and got a signed copy of his book, and have seen a lot of other interesting presentations at them, such as the time I found a 25th Infantry history buff doing a talk and she actually knew of my great-grandfather (but she's still wrong about the era of his hat pin.) There is also a lot of "horse trading" that goes on, private person to private person. Although the greater amount of traffic is buying and selling, there are the exhibits and presentations that still qualify them as a show, and if I decide, while there, to buy that old collector's old Mauser, it's none of the government's business where or when I do it.

Adding a requirement that EVERY gun transaction within the building, or within five miles, had to have a check, or it was prohibited, would ruin gun shows for me and a lot of other people. I don't go to them with the intention of buying anything (well, ok, sometimes I find good deals on bulk ammo) but if I do want to buy, and if it's not from a dealer, then I don't want the hassle of running a check or leaving the building, and if I find a buyer for my .32NAA while I am just wandering, then I don't want to have to run a check or leave the building to do it.

It has already been shown that the current check system has little or no effect on criminals, and there is no reason to expect that expanding the scope will advance the effectiveness. The problem is we are falling prey to the anti-gun nuts' own thinking. They don't want to admit that a law that does nothing should be discarded, they operate on the principle that just a little more regulation will work, eating the elephant one bite at a time, and if we let them pass just this one little thing, that's one more bite out of the still living elephant by the gun grabbing vultures.

I totally agree with you. However, if we were forced to pass a law to "close the gunshow loophole" then a law that only controls what happens INSIDE a gun show would be the maximum I would support.

If it was up to me there would be no FFL's, no 4473, no NICS. We survived for 200+ years without any of those.

And how would we be "forced" to pass a law?

[atticus]

In today's news (The Hill link on Drudge, center column), Republican senators McCain, Collins, and Heller are reported to be likely to sign on to universal background checks. Trial baloon? Baloney? Some truth there? Who knows. Not trying to paint all Republican federal legislators with a broad brush. Just pointing out that at least some Republican senators may not yet get it.