"A perverted and abiding love for guns "

[Katya Mullethov]

One of the rare homicides actually caused by the gun fetishism I keep hearing about near to every day . This case cries for common sense legislation closing the gun show loophole that allows face to face sales with no requirement for disclosure of these so called "ass guns" .

"Especially the shotgun"

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Bruce+Lavallee-Davidson%2C++


I dont want to end up with one .

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. The gunshow loophole does not "allow" anything.

In fact, it does not exist.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Of course it exists, in the same way any other kind of hole exists -

in that there is nothing there. There is no legislation restricting private sales between non-dealers - and therefore, anyone can buy a weapon without undergoing background checks. If you want a 'loophole' by which you can avoid a background check, that is it. It is not a loophole in existing legislation - it is that there is NO legislation.

Which has nothing to do with this case - a case involving genuine gun fetishism (as opposed to the ordinary gun loving here which is often called a gun fetish, but is actually nothing more than a weird non-sexual obsession).

And the point of the articles is not anti-gun, but anti-gay.

So I'm not sure what the OP's point was in the first place. I think it was "Ooh, those ICKY gays".

[TheWraith]

5. No, that wasn't the OP's point.

The OP's point was to make a joke about the constant accusations of "gun fetishism" and the danger of guns.

And yes, anyone can buy a weapon without undergoing background checks if they buy from another private individual in their own state. Same as you can buy a used car from someone without lemon laws and dealer requirements coming into play. Gun shows have nothing to do with it--a gun show is no more special a place for private sales than the parking lot of a supermarket, or somebody's garage.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Well, a gun show IS a better, and probably more common place than

supermarket parking lots simply because you know the seller isn't really there just to knock you on the head and take your money. It isn't showing up at some stranger's apartment in answer to a classified ad. If you are going to make a private purchase from a stranger, it's probably the best way to do it. It would be, I'm sure, less common than a private purchase from friends, however.

[SteveM]

60. Actually, for criminals, gun shows are a poor place to purchase...

Most gun shows have LEOs in the show itself and outside in the parking lots. Why? They are looking for folks which match mug shots, checking for license plates of cars owned by thugs, and checking out people who are nervous and have little knowledge of guns, but buying arms, as potential "straw" purchasers. This is why, according to some studies, criminals rarely visit "gun shows" to make their purchases. They get their guns from "the street" and from break-ins.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. They are also buyers and sellers.

I think the Washington Arms Collectors shows are pretty much the last place a criminal would want to hang out.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

13. lack of legislation is not a loophole.

By your logic, the only reason you are allowed to buy knives without a background check is the Knife Loophole.
The Knife Loophole being the lack of legislation preventing you from buying dangerous blades, unchecked of course.


Although, in all seriousness, a loophole is not the lack of legislation - quite the opposite infact. A loophole is a part of legislation that allows the circumvention of laws which would otherwise apply to the parties of interest. Please realize, there is no such thing as the "gunshow loophole". Period.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. A hole is a hole - defined by the non-existance of anything in the area of

the hole. Therefore, the 'loophole' exists.

A 'loophole' in legislation is not something deliberately inserted INTO legislation - it is something which legislation does not cover. No gun sale legislation covers private purchases, therefore, that is a loophole in gun sales regulation.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

[X_Digger]

17. Google: define: loophole

-an ambiguity (especially one in the text of a law or contract) that makes it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation
-A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law without directly violating the law.
-A means of avoiding the intent of a law while abiding by the letter of a law

Now, what section of USC 18, sec 922 contains an obligation that is circumvented at a gun show?

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. The very first paragraph:

(a) It shall be unlawful -
(1) for any person -
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or
licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing,
manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such
business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in
interstate or foreign commerce; or...

It shall be unlawful for any person except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to engage in the business of dealing in firearms.

The intent of the legislation is to control the sales of firearms, thus ensuring they are sold to persons found to have no legal impediment to their ownership.

Private sales circumvent that. And the guy selling guns out of his truck at a gun show, calling them private sales while nonetheless making a business of it, is exploiting that loophole. He does no background checks, sells to whoever offers, and in doing so does nothing illegal.

Can you honestly say that is NOT a loophole in the intent of the law?

[slackmaster]

22. Selling someone a used tool is not the same as running in a business selling tools

The intent of the legislation is to control the sales of firearms,

The intent of the legislation is to regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE in firearms, which is one of the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

Private sales circumvent that. And the guy selling guns out of his truck at a gun show, calling them private sales while nonetheless making a business of it, is exploiting that loophole.

The person you just described is BREAKING THE LAW by running a business without a federal firearms license.

Can you honestly say that is NOT a loophole in the intent of the law?

Yes, that is a problem of enforcement.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Technically, he is not breaking the law unless he is transporting those

weapons across state lines. Each individual sale is a 'private' sale, just a little deal between him and his good buddy that he met five minutes earlier.

[X_Digger]

36. ATF defines 'in the business of'..

.. and they have and do bust people for that.

[slackmaster]

47. As a federal firearms licensee I am qualified to say that you are deeply mistaken

A business is a business even within one state.

[X_Digger]

23. "engage in the business of.."

Does the fact that I can sell my house without a realtor license mean that there's a "House Loophole"? Does the ability to sell my car via the classifieds mean that there's a "Car Dealer Loophole"?

If private sales were never intended to be covered (see congressional testimony around the GCA 68, you may have to visit your local library if you don't have LexisNexis access to the Congressional Record) then no, that is NOT a loophole.

If it were the original intent, they could have simplified the law by leaving out the 'engaged in the business of' clause.

Funnily enough, Al Gore, Sr fought against Thomas Dodd's brain child (Dodd wanted registration and licensing, support for which peaked the month after RFK's assassination and was off the radar 6 monthes later.) Gore argued with the NRA. Fancy that! (Gore and LBJ had fought over Viet Nam and the middle east, along with taxes, I believe, and Gore had endorsed McGovern in 1968.)

[SteveM]

62. The study of Earth's water bodies suffers from the "loophole" of land mass....

The NICS test was designed for dealers and not the general public (in terms of record-keeping and access to NICS data). Your characterization of this law as a 'loophole' dilutes the expression to meaninglessness.

If you wish to extend the NICS test to individuals, then let's see the plan. As of now, I can sell a shotgun to any adult that I have no reason to believe is a criminal, and do so right out of the trunk of my car.

A gun show has little to do with all this, and "loopholes" nothing at all.

[Katya Mullethov]

66. Control the language , control the debate

The constant and blatant attempts at which I will so delicately continue to mock .

There is no gun show loophole anymore than crack franchisees are the childhood victims of gun crime nor is there any real danger of recieving an ex-ass gun in a trade .

[Redneck Socialist]

2. World Nut Daily?

Whatever your point is, I'm pretty sure that the fact that the top link in the search you posted is for World Nut Daily isn't going to help your case.

It's certainly revealing though.

[Don Caballero]

3. In a perfect United States gun ownership by civilians would be outlawed.

I have come to realize that it would be political suicide for Democrats to push for an outright ban, so incrementally placing restrictions is a good option.

[TheWraith]

6. Do you believe other things some people find dangerous should be outlawed?

There's probably more people in the US who believe homosexuality is dangerous and should be banned than there are people who feel the way you do. Are those people entitled to force their views on the rest of us?

Believing that you have the moral right and duty to run other people's lives for their own good and the good of the community is simply dead wrong, no matter what you direct it at.

[sharesunited]

10. There really is no equivalency between guns and any other risk.

They are intended and designed to kill.

They are convenient and efficient to use.

and

You cannot outrun somebody who points one at you.

In short, they should be turned into collectibles by turning off the spigot of new ones.

[Don Caballero]

12. Finally someone who does not get talking points from the NRA

"In short, they should be turned into collectibles by turning off the spigot of new ones." Love it!!!

[eqfan592]

30. LOL! Nicely done, Don.

You just threw in with the most irrational person this side of the nut house when it comes to the issue of firearms ownership.

[Don Caballero]

31. I am not familiar with this poster

Just like what he/her had to say about the subject.

[TheWraith]

49. And you think that would do what, exactly?

Do you think that guns automatically stop working if new ones aren't being made?

And you didn't answer my question. Do you believe that a small minority should be allowed to override the rights of everyone else "for their own good?"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. Here is what Ben franklin thinks of you.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

[proteus_lives]

44. Are you and Don going to go on vacation together?

Talk about what you would love to ban, what books you would love to burn, who you would deny voting rights to.

An authoritarian weekend get-away.

[TheWraith]

50. That's exactly how the fundies feel about gay people.

Do you or do you not think that a small minority should be entitled to force their morality on everyone else "for their own good?" Yes or no, please.

[Pavulon]

68. Like coke. Finish up that ban. get back to me.

good luck you will die an old man before that ever happens. No constitutional right to snort a line, seems that has not been banned that effectively.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. That is exactly why we fight your increments so strongly.

We are no longer fooled. We are well aware that you intend to chip away at our rights. So much so that for a Democrat in any but the safest of seats to vote for any anti-gun measure is political suicide. And most Democrats know it too. That is why so much local pro-gun legislation is making it through.

BTW - You are aware that almost all gun crimes are committed by people for whom it is already illegal for them to have a gun, aren't you? What benefit is there in taking my guns from me?

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Maybe to keep them from stealing your gun to use in a crime? nt

[eqfan592]

32. You could do the same with cars as well.

As stolen cars are used in the commision of crimes on a regular basis, and they are also very deadly when missused.

Of course, suggestion of such an idea is a sign of a fairly irrational mind...

[GreenStormCloud]

57. That will be very difficult to do.

Our doors and frames are reinforced so that they will be very difficult to kick in.

Motion dectectors will sound an inside alarm is someone comes to the doors.

Inside motion dectectors cover certain areas when we are asleep. The path from bedroom and hall to bathroom are the only areas that are unmonitored at night.

When I am out and about, I have my guns on my person. They will be very difficult to steal from me then.

Our guns enable us to protect ourselves in the event that trouble should come calling.

That has already happened once. My wife came to no harm because she had a gun.

[SteveM]

64. So, you are for complete bans as well? nt

[Callisto32]

9. Why should the state still have them?

Please explain why the state should have them if the populace should not.

[Don Caballero]

11. It is the duty of the state apparatus

to protect its citizens. In order to protect the citizens they must be armed. I do however disagree with the militarization of the police force. SWAT teams and other specialized police groups should not have tanks and machine guns.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. Law enforcement personel are under no obligation to protect citizens not directly in thier custody.

Don't kid yourself.
You advocating arming only one group of persons to protect you... a group not obligated to protect you.
Are you seeing the disconnect in logic there?

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. That is 'citizens' in the collective, not the individual.

The ONLY reason police forces exist is to protect the citizenry. As the constitution says in the preamble "...establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..."

Police forces fall into the 'well-organized militia' category (there was no such thing as a "police force" when the constitution was written) and it falls upon them to protect society as a whole from those who prey on it. Those police forces can't be held accountable for failing to protect any particular individual, but "to serve and protect" is their reason for being.

[PavePusher]

61. If they can not be counted upon to protect an individual...

then "society as a whole", being made up of individuals, is a meaningless concept.

[X_Digger]

15. They are not liable for not enforcing their 'duty'..

They (agents of the 'state apparatus') are responsible for the general protection of society, not you personally. Even before DeShaney, Winnebago, Castle Rock, police departments asserted that they had no general duty to protect an individual in need.

This stems from the way the constitution is worded. It empowers but does not obligate the government to provide services, in many cases. As I've noted before (specific to the second amendment, but also applying generally)- the bill of rights is a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'people can' document, nor is it a 'the government shall' document. These powers granted the government are discretionary ('Congress shall have the ability to..' rather than 'Congress shall..'), and do not allow citizens the legal right to demand services.

So if the police are not obligated to protect you, personally, what right do you have to deny individuals the right to protect themselves?

[SteveM]

65. Nicely said (nt)

[jeepnstein]

19. The state has no duty to protect you as an individual.

That's just not what police officers do.

[TPaine7]

20. Only in your alternate reality.

Police have no duty to protect you. They do have a duty not to violate your civil rights; if they violate your civil rights you can sue.

If a policeman eats a sandwich and calmly watches while a felon beats you to a bloody pulp, you cannot win a settlement against him or against his employer. (There are special exceptions, for instance you could win a settlement if you were in protective custody at the time.)

As a general rule, police have no duty to protect individual citizens.

Now it is true that most police officers would not act as I described above. They would go beyond their legal obligation and act in your defense. But despite the best intentions of the best police in the world, most felons commit violent crimes in the absence of law enforcement. They're funny that way.

You continue to live in your fantasy world. Police will protect you and your family. Nothing bad could possibly happen to you in a situation where a gun would be enable you or your family to survive.

Oh, and yes, there is a Santa Claus.

[Katya Mullethov]

21. Bu- But

It's an apparatus !!!

[eqfan592]

33. Surprise surprise, Don ignores when he's shown to be completely wrong.

And how much you want to bet this doesn't stop him from making the same wrong assertions in the future?

[Don Caballero]

34. What am I wrong about?

[X_Digger]

35. See posts $14, #15, #19, #20..

"It is the duty of the state apparatus to protect its citizens."

It is not the duty of the 'state' to protect 'citizens' (individuals) but to protect society in general.

[Don Caballero]

37. Citizens make up a society

The police and military are sworn to protect the Constitution and citizenry of its nation.

[X_Digger]

41. *sigh* see links within..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

"Citizenry" in the abstract, not individuals. You cannot hold a cop accountable for failing to protect you unless a special relationship exists, like you being deprived of liberty by nature of being incarcerated or in custody.

[eqfan592]

38. From post 11, your post.

"It is the duty of the state apparatus to protect its citizens."

This is simply not true, on several levels.

Firstly, it would literally be impossible for the state to protect each of it's individual citizens, as such a task would require a police force far to large for any functioning state to ever be capable of producing. The police are simply not capable of being everywhere at all times, thus to hold them responsible for the personal protection of each citizen is simply not reasonable. And trying to force them to do so with the force at it's current size would simply leave the police open to a law suit for every single crime committed against a person.

Secondly, the Supreme Court of the United States says you're wrong.

" The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

From this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

What it boils down to, Don, is that we are each responsible for our own personal safety. And in such an environment, it is regarded as morally and ethically repugnant by those who have an understanding of these facts for the state to remove from its citizens their ability to reasonably and effectively defend themselves.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. It's also the duty of the citizens to protect the state.

Which also requires arms. My state Constitution:

Text of Section 24:
Right to Bear Arms.

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

[spin]

24. Incremental bans are also political suicide ...

because gun owners are damn well aware that they are purposed by people who believe, "In a perfect United States gun ownership by civilians would be outlawed."

Gun owners aren't stupid by any means.

[Don Caballero]

26. I agree that gun owners on the whole are bright and well informed

That is why the fight in the States has been so hard for those of us who want to limit the amount of firearms on the streets.

[spin]

52. Realistically, do you honestly believe that most Americans ...

are just going to hand over their firearms because you ban them?

First you have to pass laws requiring people to register their firearms. Since gun owners are well aware that registration will lead to confiscation, expect major resistance to passing this law. If it does pass, expect that many gun owners will chose to avoid registering their firearms.

How do you handle the problem of a large number of citizens who refuse to register their firearms? House to house searches? Do you offer rewards for info leading to unregistered firearms?

If you do round up a number of citizens who failed to register their weapons, how do you punish them? Do you release other felons to provide space in prison for these people who were previously honest and productive members of society? Do you impose enormous fines rather than jail time?

Of course, you have to realize that the criminal element will simply ignore your gun ban; however, they will consider the ban the greatest boost to their profession in their lifetime. Criminals fear armed citizens far more than police. Police often call for backup and attempt non-lethal techniques such as pepper spray or TASERs before shooting. If a criminal breaks into a civilian's house, he may encounter an armed homeowner who will not hesitate to shoot.

I believe that you honestly feel that reducing the number of firearms in the U.S. will reduce crime. Strangely, more firearms does not seem to equate to more crime.



Obviously we have many millions more firearms in the hands of civilians today than we did in 1973. I'm not going to argue that more guns equals less crime. The major factor in the reduction of crime is probably better police work.

If you seriously want to see a reduction in crime and murder than why not focus your efforts on what works? Why not target criminals and criminal gangs and attempt to take the illegal firearms off the street by treating illegal carry as a IMPORTANT crime? All too often we tend to plea bargain away charges for illegally carrying a firearm.

As our country because safer, we should see a reduction in the number of firearms purchased. The big driving factor in firearm sales right now does not appear to be fear of crime, but fear of Democrats and draconian gun control policies.

[Pavulon]

67. Here is a deal, finish up the drug ban

then the hooker ban and I will throw my guns into the sea. Good luck with that. Will never happen, ever.

[armueller2001]

72. I don't keep my firearms

on the streets. They would get far too rusty that way. They're much better locked up in my humidity-controlled safe.

[slackmaster]

27. Here's a Web site just for you, Don Caballero

http://www.non-violent.com/

[Don Caballero]

29. Could you tell me what this site is before I click the link

Thanks in advance.

[taurus145]

42. It's touchy feely

Yuck!\
I want to shoot something.
:evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

51. Marilyn's Non-Violent Planet

It can't hurt you.

[GreenStormCloud]

53. Kittens are born with 18 concealed switchblades.

At the bottom she has a cartoon picture of a cat with a ball of yarn. Unless humans have intervened, that cat is heavily armed for its size. Cats come equipped to be very violent when they need to be.

[proteus_lives]

43. Wow, you love to control people don't you?

What else would you ban?

[virginia mountainman]

45. ROFLMAO!! Incrementally.

You do realize, that we are winning, incramentaly.... More pro gun legislation was past into law last year, than ever before...

[Don Caballero]

46. Perhaps that is true.

In the end we gun control advocates will win. Wait and see. The United States will be a gun free zone sooner than you think.

[virginia mountainman]

48. How can you uninvent something??

I make my own ammunition...Many shooters already do this, and many of them make their own bullets too...Gunpowder and primers is easily improvised in a trip to practically ANY supermarket..

I have a friend, that as a hobby, make his own firearms??? Yes, it is completely legal...

Now tell me, How can you un-invent something??

You can wish in one hand, and crap in the other, than you can see which gets filled first...

[GreenStormCloud]

59. We are about to win again in SCOTUS.

The reach of the 2A will be strengthened and extended. Any 13 states can block a constitutional amendment. Since 40 states have shall-issue CCW systems, and none of those states are having problems with them, I can project 40 states that will block you. But have fun trying.

[OI812]

73. Could I get some of whatever you're smoking?

I suddenly have the urge to fry a few million brain cells.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. Nothing like a new DUer who hates civil rights.

[rd_kent]

56. Any other COnstitutional Rights we should place incremental restrictions on?

How about we start with a restriction on your right to free speech. Starting now....

[PavePusher]

58. Will you please get rid of crime and government thuggery first?

Then we won't really need firearms, except for hunting and target shooting.


Whatever.

[SteveM]

63. Trouble is, everyone has read the same book on prohibition...

they know all about your "incrementalism," and have rightfully concluded that "reasonable" or "common sense" gun control is merely a subterfuge for bans and confiscations.

It strikes me as odd that when some folks attack 2A advocates as "paranoid," they forget their own agenda: BAN guns if possible, or do the next best thing: a little at a time. Being concerned about this agenda is not paranoia at all, but a "reasonable" and "common sense" fear -- given your (and others') agenda and policies.

[PavePusher]

39. Now hear this! All hands, please retune your sarcasm detectors.

That is all.



Sigh.

[Remmah2]

69. At least no gerbils were harmed. nt

nt