Candidates on the issues: Guns

[RoeBear]

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/lateststories/index.ssf?/base/politics-2/107566044040210.xml
"The Associated Press chooses an issue three times a week and asks the presidential candidates a question about it."

[CO Liberal]

1. Guns Are So Unimportant To Me.....

...that I would not use a candidate's gun stance as a reason to vote for or against them. I vote for the complete package - not on the basis of a single issue.

[girl gone mad]

2. Well, it's a good thing..

because you'd either love 'em all or hate 'em all on this one.

Their positions on guns are virtually indistinguishable.

[Columbia]

3. Thanks RoeBear

Good to have as much information as possible. It's hard to tell from these responses, but from the nuances I gather that Dean and Edwards are our best bets. Kerry and Kucinich seem pretty close while Clark and Lieberman do not even mention a belief in protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[alwynsw]

4. I gotta go with Dean or Edwards as well

But then, all plans seem to fail survival after the honeymoon. Looks as though we'll all be crossing our fingers for a while.

[MrBenchley]

5. Gee...

Notice they all want to close the gun show loophole....

[CO Liberal]

6. You Mean That Thing That Doesn't Exist????

:-)

[MrBenchley]

7. Amazing, isn't it?

And Dr. Dean wants to ban assault weapons...doesn't he realize that there are no such things, and that dozens of people want to get their sweaty shaky hands on them legally?

[slackmaster]

23. Nice Straw Man

And Dr. Dean wants to ban assault weapons...doesn't he realize that there are no such things,...

A position that nobody on this forum has ever taken.

[Withergyld]

10. There is NO gunshow loophole

it is a private sale loophole.

[MrBenchley]

11. Tee hee hee....

[Withergyld]

14. Snicker all you want

The gun show loophole was debunked a while back. Remember this thread?? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=14309
The truth has not changed :hi:

[MrBenchley]

17. The truth has not changed and neither has RKBA bullshit

as the candidates' responses clearly show.

Thanks for bringing up that thread though...it's always instructive to see how desperately and wildly the RKBA crowd will spin.

[Withergyld]

18. The only spinning I see is from the gun control crowd.

Lets pass a law that sounds like we are doing something, but will have little if any effect on reducing crime.

This is why closing the gun show loop hole will be ineffective:

Many who feel that gun laws in the U.S. are too lax cite the "gunshow loophole" as a major source for criminals to purchase firearms. However there requirements to sell of buy a firearm at a gunshow are the same as any other place a firearm may be bought or sold. A licensed dealer must perform a NICS check anytime they sell a firearm to an unlicensed person NO MATTER THE LOCATION of the sale. There are a few exceptions to the NICS requirement. Some states issue firearms ID cards that require a background check to obtain. Arizona also allows concealed carry permit holders to bypass the NICS check. In these cases a thorough background check has already been performed that satifies the Brady Law. Private sales do not require a background check.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that less then 1% of armed criminals obtain their firearms at a gunshow. The same report shows that 40% of armed criminals obtain their firearm from an illegal source. Another 40% of armed criminals obtain their firearms for family or friends.
A great deal of effort is being expended to pass a law that would have little impact on where criminals purchase firearms.
The "gunshow loophole" is a fallacy because the laws that govern the sale of firearms are the same regardless of location.

For further reading see:
The FAQ page for the ATF
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/index.htm
See table 8 on page 6 of the following PDF file from the BJS for sources of firearms used by criminals
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

[MrBenchley]

19. Hahahahahahahahaha....

Sure. with......there is no gun show loophole, and so few criminals use it.....

(snicker)

[Withergyld]

20. I have supported my position

with a government study. Can you produce a link that shows otherwise???

[demsrule4life]

8. Loophole? what loophole

I don't see a loophole.

[MrBenchley]

12. 'Nuff said, dems

[demsrule4life]

13. Surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre

[slackmaster]

21. None of them have the balls to try to close the REAL loophole

Transactions at gun shows represent a tiny fraction of the largely unregulated secondary market in used firearms.

We need a candidate who understands the technical and legal issues well enough to come up with a workable solution to the problems caused by private party transfers done without background checks; and has the empathy and creativity to address the legitimate concerns about privacy and liberty of enough pro-RKBA voters that make a California-type system where all sales are done through dealers unrealistic.

All this hooting and hollering about the so-called gun-show loophole is worthless pandering. And I mean to address that remark to extremists on both ends of the gun rights/gun control spectrum.

[MrSandman]

30. I agree that there the gun show loophole

is a private transaction loophole

"Transactions at gun shows represent a tiny fraction of the largely unregulated secondary market in used firearms."

What to do about private transactions? I have seen figures for guns obtained by criminals at gun shows. It is a tiny fraction of guns used in crime. I also saw the figure on another thread that 10% of recovered weapons or 10% of weapons used by juveniles were sold at gun shows. It was not stated how many of the criminals actually obtained the weapons at the gun shows.

Are there any studies of how many of criminally used weapons are from legitimate private transfers? I.e. not a stolen weapon, straw man purchase, "black market" sale(previously stolen), or sold by someone who knows the purchaser is a non-eligible person.

If that is significant, how to address private transactions? Private transactions through a licensed dealer? Not a bad idea if there was adequate assurance that the cost would not be significant. Under the current NICS process, this would not be much of an encroachment on liberty and privacy, but would it help?

[slackmaster]

31. Allow me to outline my idea

I'll keep this deliberately brief.

1. Make the NICS checks available to private individuals.

2. A person who wants to sell a gun _may_ use NICS to check the background of a prospective buyer.

- Seller pays a small fee.

- Buyer provides same data required by dealers.

- Buyer gets a snail-mail notification that he or she has been checked and who performed the check. This will discourage use of the system for other than intended purposes.

- Performing a check under false pretenses would be a misdemeanor.

3. If the buyer comes up clean, seller gets a confirmation number (similar to what dealers get) and definitive defense against prosecution in the event the buyer turns out to be a prohibited person who slipped through the cracks.

4. If seller elects _not_ to perform check on a buyer, seller can be charged with providing a gun to a prohibited person (e.g. felon) if the buyer is a prohibited person and the transaction comes to the attention of authorities.

This system would address several problems apparent in other proposals to "close the gun-show loophole":

- Addresses all private sales, not just ones conducted at gun shows.

- Allows sellers to transfer guns to well-known friends, relatives, etc. without going through the hassle and expense of a background check,

- Protects everyone's privacy and confidentiality,

- Does not create a gun registry (which kills the idea in the minds of the most zealous gun-grabbers),

- Does not put the federal government in the position of regulating private, intrastate transfers of ordinary personal property (for which it would have arguably no Constitutional authority),

- Does not require involvement of an FFL holder. Dealers typically charge a fee for private-party transfers or consignment sales,

- Would not interfere with existing state systems that do not use NICS, e.g. California where all transactions go through FFL holders.

I've gotten all kinds of different responses to this idea including "WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK?", "Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre", and "As a seller I prefer to keep buyers fully at arm's length; I will not be accountable for their criminal activity", etc.

[MrSandman]

32. Actually, it makes too much sense.

But I think I like it.

[slackmaster]

33. Senators Boxer and Feinstein have not expressed opinions yet

Maybe I should ping them again. The letters I sent to them were far more detailed, suggesting specific language for the US Code.

If they did assign anyone to analyze the idea it will take some thought. I've noticed that none of their staffers seem to know jack shit about gun laws or how transactions are conducted.

[MrSandman]

34. Thanks for the condensed version

[Withergyld]

9. Read Kucinich's response

"As president, I would support legislation to require background checks, identical to the background checks currently required for transfers by licensed gun dealers, for firearm transfers by unlicensed gun dealers at gun shows."

Being an unlicensed gun dealer is illegal. He says nothing about private sales at gunshows.

[slackmaster]

22. And neither DK nor any of the others have said jack shit

About private sales that happen at places OTHER THAN GUN SHOWS.

[funkyflathead]

15. Edwards never mentions the "Assault Weapons Ban"

SWEET!

[MrBenchley]

16. Probably not mentioned because it's so obvious

"John Edwards:  I support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I also believe we must keep guns out of the hands of criminals, by enforcing existing gun laws, closing the gun show loophole, and extending the assault weapons ban. We also need to make sure police can work with communities to combat gun violence."

http://www.votebyissue.org/primary/issue.asp?i=37

"Support a Renewed and Stronger Assault Weapons Ban
Democratic presidential candidates are increasingly taking the right position on the assault weapons ban: it must be not only renewed, but also strengthened. According to a new survey by Americans for Gun Safety, Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and John Edwards (D-NC) suggested they would include, or consider including, "copycat" assault weapons in a strengthened ban. Of the current members of Congress running for president, however, only Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Reps. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) have actually co-sponsored legislation to strengthen the assault weapons ban. "

http://www.cpanews.org/

[slackmaster]

29. Edwards is as clear as mud on that issue

Cited sources show two mutually exclusive answers.

From http://www.votebyissue.org/primary/issue.asp?i=37 -

I support... ...extending the assault weapons ban...

Which is what George W. Bush has claimed as HIS position.

From http://www.cpanews.org/ -

According to a new survey by Americans for Gun Safety, Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and John Edwards (D-NC) suggested they would include, or consider including, "copycat" assault weapons in a strengthened ban.

So which is it, Senator Edwards? Some of us out here actually do give a shit because it affects us personally.

[slackmaster]

24. Senator Kerry got one thing right

The background check system is in a state of disrepair. Lack of complete input data has prevented it from realizing its potential.

[1a2b3c]

25. My take

Clark: While it all sounds good, requiring background checks at gun shows is just another feel good waste of time. Background checks for private firearm transfers should have taken the place of the imaginary gun show loophole. Trigger locks are fine....as long as i dont have to use the damn thing after i buy my gun.

Dean: I hate the AWB and the "gun show loophole". Neither one of them make sense to me. But whatever makes the voters happy.

Edwards: This gun show loophole is becoming a new catch phrase. It will not do anything to keep guns out of criminal hands. What do we do after the gun show loophole is closed? Start a newspaper loophole? Or maybe a buying from your neighbor loophole? And selling all guns with trigger locks is ok with me....dont think im gonna use the trigger lock.

Kerry: While i will never vote for Kerry, he sounds like he has the best opinion on firearms, atleast from this little tid-bit. Again the gun show loophole is a joke. But the NICS does need some fixing. And he doesnt make it seem like everyone should have a trigger lock on their guns at all times.

Kucinich: Damn if he would have worded that better i think he would have beat out Kerry. If it would just have said unlicensed gun dealers period instead of unlicensed dealers at gun shows then it would have been a good point.

Lieberman: You can just tell Joe said that paragraph.

Sharpton: If he wasnt a gun banning Nazi....and a black man....he would be president in 2004.

[RoeBear]

26. I'm thinking I like Edwards better now...

...quoting Edwards
"To achieve these goals, I support modest changes in federal gun laws _ closing the gun show loophole and requiring trigger locks on new weapons _ which we should take while honoring the right to own
guns for hunting, sporting or personal protection."


I'd rather hear him say that he'd close the 'private sale loophole' than repeat the tired old 'gun show loophole' crap, and I could care less about whether gun locks are included in a sale, but it was refreshing to hear him use the words 'personal protection'.

[FeebMaster]

27. Gun locks aren't free.

A quick search shows a California approved trigger lock for around $7. Not much maybe, but just one more burden for someone who can only afford a cheap gun in the first place.

If it were a republican calling for trigger locks, there would be people saying that the republican was trying to line the pockets of his corporate friends at the trigger lock company.

[1a2b3c]

28. You know thats true.

If it were a republican calling for trigger locks, there would be people saying that the republican was trying to line the pockets of his corporate friends at the trigger lock company.

I find the hypocrites in the two parties funny though.