Gun Rights Advocates, Protesters Exchange Verbal Fire
Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip Van Cleave (red tie) is backed by several dozen supporters wearing orange "Guns Save Lives" stickers at the City Council Meeting Oct. 26 (Falls Church Times photos by George Southern)
By GEORGE BROMLEY
Falls Church Times Staff
Robin Gardner was their target but she was never in range.
Over 50 Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) members and their supporters packed the Falls Church Council Chamber Monday night to protest Mayor Gardner’s membership in Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Sporting orange stickers proclaiming “Guns Save Lives,” they spoke and at one point stood in unison to make their point. Some reinforced their rhetoric by wearing side-arms, a sight seldom seen in the chamber.
Mayor Gardner, however, was absent from the proceedings, so the VCDL’s verbal rounds fell instead on Vice Mayor Hal Lippman and the four members of the Council who were attending.
Outnumbered and certainly outgunned, other speakers came to support the mayors’ position, their red stickers pleading “Protest Easy Guns.”
Van Cleave outside the Courtroom with supporter packing a sidearm. Although sign reads "No . . . weapons allowed in the courtroom," the Council Chamber is only a "courtroom" when court is in session. Many advocates carried guns into the chamber.
Falls Church resident Hannah Jordan spoke in support of Mayor Gardner and advocated closing the “gun show loophole.” Ms. Jordan, who described the gun rights advocates as a vocal minority, led a delegation of a dozen local citizens, several of whom also addressed the Council.
However, their comments were more than matched in number by the VCDL speakers and their supporters, who greatly outnumbered the protesters. This was most evident when they stood in response to a request from Ed Levine of Sterling, who asked all rise who believed Ms. Gardner should leave the coalition.
Falls Church resident Hannah Jordan and a dozen supporters wore red "Protest Easy Guns" stickers.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns, founded and co-chaired by Michael Bloomberg of New York, aims to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Over 450 mayors have joined the coalition, including seven in Virginia.
The VCDL believes the coalition’s ultimate aim is to destroy the gun business, a point made by Philip Van Cleave, president of the organization, in his remarks.
Vice Mayor Lippman thanked both groups for expressing their views. He observed that a delegation of Nicaraguan officials who were attending the meeting had observed a “healthy lesson” in participatory democracy.
By George Bromley
October 27, 2009
Good article. I was there, and though I have views on this issue I am glad to see the Falls Church Times report on the event with an even hand. Good job, Mr. Bromley.
Those speaking in support of the Mayor’s role in Bloomberg’s coalition gave the impression that they had simply shown up to support the Mayor. I don’t remember them identifying their organization, but they were called together by the anti-second-amendment group Virginia Center for Public Safety. They also called for the “closing the gun-show loophole” and calling for background checks on firearm sales by exploiting the Virginia Tech shooting tragedy. They failed to note that the shooter at Virginia Tech actually passed TWO background checks and that he did not purchase his firearms at a gun show. The fact that they are being disingenous lends credence to the VCDL’s claim that this coalition and its supporters ultimately want to ban all guns.
I spoke last night to support Mayor Gardner’s membership in the Coalition of Mayors against Illegal Guns because I believe strongly in the objectives of this coalition whose stated goal is to reduce criminal access to guns—not to take guns out of the hands of lawful citizens. I was made aware of the planned protest by the VCDL via email through ProtestEasyGuns founder and Alexandria resident Abby Spangler. Ms. Spangler organizes peaceful lie-ins around the country that sprang from the despair that she, like many Americans, felt after the Virginia Tech massacre. Ms. Spangler organized a lie-in in front of our Community Center a couple of years ago, in which 32 Falls Church residents like myself participated. When Ms. Spangler informed us of VCDL’s plans to show up to protest Mayor Gardner’s membership in the coalition, many of us of the original Falls Church “32” sprang into action of our own accord. I agreed to speak for our group. Our goal was to support the mayor. For the record, I have never been involved with the other group the previous writer spoke about (Virginia Center for Public Safety) and know virtually nothing about them. I am aware they had a representative at the meeting and that the president happened to be sitting behind me. I am happy to provide the full content of my statement to the council if anyone would like to see it. Thank you.
Hannah Jordan
Thank you to Philip Van Cleave and VCDL members for showing up at this meeting to voice our collective displeasure regarding the Mayors’ Anti-gun Coalition.
The law, as currently written, already makes it illegal for felons to own or even handle a firearm. It is also illegal for anyone to sell a firearm to anyone who they know to be ineligible for firearm ownership. (i.e. if I had a brother who was a felon and I sold a gun to him). Holding felons accountable with strict punishment for transgressions is the way to correct this problem – not blocking the ability of lawful firearm owners from trading and selling firearms privately.
Thank you to the Falls Church Times for providing an accurate description of this meeting instead of the normal left-leaning mumbo jumbo that is brainwashing the sheeple.
I watched the meeting on TV last night and wanted to note that not one speaker from the VCDL group lived in Falls Church City and in fact most of the speakers drove a fair distance to make their comments known. I also note that “Rick” above is not willing to offer his full name. I welcome public comment on issues, but I don’t understand why someone from Midlothian, VA could possibly be affected so severely by what is clearly a local issue to Falls Church City, that he would feel compelled to travel here to speak about it.
While I wasn’t writing down everybody’s name and address like some people seem to have been doing, there were certainly protesters who live in the city present at the meeting. And not all of the anti-Second-Amendment supporters were from Falls Church… [personal reference deleted by editor due to anonymity of person commenting].
Also, using the rhetoric of the anti-Second-Amendment speakers, this isn’t a local issue. When was the last time there was a gun show in Falls Church? Or did I miss the firearms vendors at the farmers market? Since Mayor Gardner wants to change state law, this is an issue for all Virginians.
But I guess it was just a happy coincidence that the Protest Easy Guns people and the Virginia Center for Public Safety people and the other anti-Second-Amendment speakers just all happen to be sitting with each other… and they all just coincidentally got up in unison and marched to the front of the room in support of one of the speakers. And I guess it is just coincidence that they all have the same talking points, and that the goals on their websites are nearly identical and that they have pictures on Flickr with each other, etc…. Nope, its just a coincidence.
Gordon,
I wasn’t aware that I was required to post my full name when commenting on an open forum such as this one on the internet.
I am a resident of Virginia and although Falls Church is not my specific “Jurisdiction”, if you will, my residency in Virginia and the fact that there are Virginians who go against the grain of the Constitution unsettles me. This is not a “Local issue” as you put it. This is a national agenda brought on by Mayor Bloomberg of New York in an effort to bring his anti-gun agenda to the lower levels of government within the states. Every mayor who signs onto Bloomberg’s coalition pushes his anti-gun agenda deeper down the throats of everyone in their community. This is clearly not just a “Local issue”
If I feel the need to travel far and wide across the Commonwealth, whether in person or in commentary such as seen here, to defend my freedoms from those who wish to squash them, then I feel that I have done the good and right thing by standing up for what i believe is right for me, for my fellow citizens, for my state and for my country.
EDITOR’S RESPONSE: We can understand how new readers of the Falls Church Times might confuse it with a blog, where everything tends to be anonymous. Not the case here. This is an online community newspaper, where the staff identifies themselves and others are asked to do the same. Our instructions are:
Feel free to leave a comment. All comments are subject to editing for courtesy and content. Please provide your first and last name.
Rick,
You certainly had the right to attend the meeting and you exercised that right and this website reported events of the meeting since it was of interest to residents of Falls Church.
As for your comments on this website, I don’t want to speak for the Falls Church Times Staff but if you go to the “About” Tab at the top of the page, you will see that the focus of the Falls Church Times is on matters of interest and a source of information for the community of Falls Church and its residents. In this fashion, it seeks to differentiate itself from most opinion blogs.
One of the writers with the Falls Church Times recently indicated that the reason full names are encouraged is that the hope is that this site will be like a New England town meeting in that when a citizen stands up to speak in a small New England town, there is no need to identify oneself as your identity is self evident (everyone at a town meeting knows you !). The internet doesn’t provide that kind of visibility so names are encouraged but not required.
By the same token, while your views (and others from outside Falls Church) on the matter in this column are interesting, I think most of the people visiting this website, including myself, are more interested in what their immediate neighbors are thinking — whatever side of the issue they are on. There are an incredible number of websites devoted to regional and national issues across the political spectrum for those seeking that type of venue. I hope this background has been informative.
I also attended the City Council meeting and did so not only to show my support for my city mayor’s membership in Mayors Against Illegal Guns, but also of course to show my support for the concrete measures they hope to see enacted throughout the state of Virginia, indeed throughout the country. I am not sure how the first writer (identified only as LFS) came to the conclusion that we are disingenuous. We genuinely believe that it is too easy for criminals and the mentally ill to purchase guns, for instance at a gun show where they can buy from a private seller without any background check. Someone like the Va Tech killer, who due to an executive order now would not be able to pass the background checks, could still easily go to a gunshow to obtain his weapons. To oppose closing that loophole puts people like LFS, and other members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, in the indefensible position of caring more about stopping any restriction to gun sales, even if that restriction is designed to enforce the law that already exists, than they do about the tragic consequences of those gun sales. The families of the Va Tech victims would find it deeply offensive to hear someone say that they are exploiting their own child’s death by standing in support of safer and saner gun measures. It is appalling to say such a thing, and indicates that gun rights advocates such as LFS, in their fight to oppose any changes in policy, have lost sight of the basic decency and respect and civility that ought to guide our public exchanges. Virginia Citizens Defense League’s dislike and distrust for coalitions like ours may be clouding its judgment on the broader issue. Enacting sensible measures is not the first step toward banning guns, as they claim. The Supreme Court has found that the Second Amendment definitively protects the right of individuals to bear arms. I am reminded by gun rights groups of those pro-choice radicals who believe every sensible measure to prevent and reduce abortion is an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade. To LFS and others: your constitutional right is safe; please turn your attention to helping prevent and reduce gun violence by doing what we can to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. You might find that some of your anger is diffused when you use your knowledge of guns for a cause that is beyond the protection of your own.
LFS, since you are from Falls Church, I guess that’s one person. I was referring to the speakers – none were from Falls Church. No way I could know where anyone else is from, and that includes those on the opposite side (although those who did speak in favor of the mayor were all FC residents).
I am interested in hearing what those who live here think, since we are the ones responsible for electing our council persons. Note that I never put out my position, you just assume I disagree with your opinion.
Now, with regards to “anti-second amendment” people – did anyone hear or read anywhere that someone said they are against the second amendment?
Liz,
I thought I had explained this in the first reply, but I’ll do it once more. Using the Virginia Tech tragedy as a reason for closing the “gun show loophole” is disingenuous because the Virginia Tech tragedy was not caused by the “gun show loophole.” What you are doing is an obvious attempt to play on people’s emotions rather than to explain your position in clear terms. It is disingenuous.
If you are unwilling to explain your position but instead resort to heartstring-pulling tactics, you give me no reason to believe that you intend to safeguard my Second Amendment rights. In fact, you give the opposite impression.
Gordon,
I didn’t mean to include myself in that list of speaker; I didn’t speak. Sorry if that is what I led you to believe. I was referring to others within the VCDL. With regard to speakers of the opposing view, I believe Jim Sollo and Abby Spangler are not from Falls Church. Again, I was not actually keeping track of names and addresses.
And sorry to have implied that you were against the Second Amendment. You are right that you have not said anything regarding your actual position, though I did not specifically say you did or say you were against the Second Amendment.
I will, however, state that I believe those in Protest Easy Guns and VCPS to be against the Second Amendment. I say this because their websites, issues lists, and talking points are nearly identical to those of the Brady Campaign, VPC, CSGV, and the other groups that have over the years tried every trick in the book to erode Second Amendment rights. Its a pretty tenuous position to state that you do not believe the government should infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and then have an ever growing laundry list of legislation that does exactly that.
With regard to the policy of the Falls Church Times to request full names for comments and replies, I understand their goal and aim and find in admirable. But I would hope that people of a community that vehemently opposed the PATRIOT Act for its erosion of privacy rights would recognize that there are those of us who have very good reason to obscure or hide our true identities. To avoid addressing a topic in a discussion for such reason really is an agenda denial tactic and an indication of weak arguments. BTW, I’ve met Rick and he is a real person and a generous individual.
I live in Springfield and agree with the others that this is not a local issue. It is a regional and national issue. You can all thank Mayor Bloomberg for making it that way. He has no business extending his agenda beyond the city limits of his own town. Having said that, you citizens of Falls Church should know the true agenda of Bloomberg and that is to ban all guns. I invite you to check statistics of cities currently under such bans or severe restrictions. Start with crime rates in Chicago, Los Angeles, DC, and New York City. The problem lies with guns gained illegally by criminals. Consider illegal drugs. With all the laws currently on the books you would think that would eradicate the problem. It has only served to make it far worse and the market for illegal drugs is flourishing. The same thing will happen if guns are banned or severely restricted. Crime rates will soar and a new black market will be created. Do you really want that? I urge you to do a little digging and then ask your mayor and council some serious questions.
I live in the City of Falls Church and I support Mayor Gardner’s decision to join the Coalition of Mayors against Illegal Guns. As mayor, she has the highest responsibility to enhance public safety. I believe that illegal gun sales have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
Note: The Coalition’s web site lists the goals as:
1. Close the gun show loophole;
2. Require gun dealers to perform criminal background checks on all gun-handling employees;
3. Close the fire sale loophole that allows dealers whose licenses have been revoked to continue to sell their inventory without conducting background checks; and
4. Close the Terror Gap that leaves those on the terrorist no-fly list off the list of prohibited purchasers of firearms.
These goals seem admirable to me and promote RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
Back to LFS from an earlier comment. It is true that many of us sat together, but may I remind you that Falls Church is a small city of 2.2 square miles and most of us there to support our mayor (as well as the coalition’s agenda) are friends through other activities as busy moms and dads—PTA meetings, soccer games, and the like—so of course we chose to sit together. I was one of the first to arrive and chose my seat because it was near the front and I wanted to be able to see the speakers. My friends chose to sit near us, rather than squeeze into the very crowded section of the chamber that was filled with members of VCDL. A few of our friends and supporters, however, arrived later and were standing in the back of the room, interspersed with members of your group (as can be seen in the photo) Abby Spangler came to offer us support.
And to Luther Keal, when you state “The problem lies with guns gained illegally by criminals”, I couldn’t agree with you more. That is one of the problems that the coalition seeks to address. Guns may be obtained illegally at gun shows and through other private sellers without a background check. This allows felons to purchase guns, cash and carry, with no questions asked. Although this is not the loophole that caused the Virginia Tech tragedy, that is no reason not to close it to prevent it from provoking a future tragedy. Why would anyone be opposed to a measure that seeks to keep guns out of the hands of felons? This is not about your second amendment rights. This is about using your (and our) second amendment rights responsibly.
J. Bowman, let me answer your issues point by point.
1. Close the gun show loophole;
You may not have noticed this, MAIG also wishes to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment which prohibits federal authorities from keeping the results of background checks when a firearm is purchased. When MAIG talks about the gun show loophole, what they are really referring to is the private sale of firearms — gun shows really have nothing to do with it. Requiring background checks on all private firearm sales while allowing authorities to keep records on the sales in perpetuity is a backdoor for creating a gun registration database. Afterall, there is little data to suggest that gun shows have anything to do with gun crime. What studies do exist show that gun shows account for very few firearms used in crimes. If you are concerned about saving innocent lives, there’s much lower hanging fruit elsewhere.
2. Require gun dealers to perform criminal background checks on all gun-handling employees;
This measure is meant to do nothing else than burden gun dealers. A dealer may not allow a prohibited person, employee or otherwise, access to firearms that would constitute possession. An employee that a gun shop owner must follow around at all times in order to meet this requirement is useless, and therefore any gun dealer abiding by the law would not employee such a person.
3. Close the fire sale loophole that allows dealers whose licenses have been revoked to continue to sell their inventory without conducting background checks;
This is a term made up by MAIG, and its intent is to bankrupt gun dealers should they have their license revoked. Upon revocation of an FFL, a dealer may sell the inventory to another FFL or transfer the inventory into their private collection. However, that private collection nor the private collection of any individual previously licensed or otherwise can be treated as a business or in such a way as to subvert licensing laws. MAIG claims this issue centers around the laws lack of a definition for what constitutes a licensed dealer, but that hasn’t stopped the ATF or federal judges for charging and convicting unlicensed dealers in the past. To suggest that the ATF has been thus far hamstrung by the lack of such a definition is laughable and demonstrably false.
4. Close the Terror Gap that leaves those on the terrorist no-fly list off the list of prohibited purchasers of firearms.
This is the one where I have to think, “You cannot possibly be serious.” Even the ACLU has called this a serious violation of due process. To say that somebody is to lose a constitutional right based on a secret list for which the acceptance criteria is unknown and for which there is no appeals process is simply un-American. The citizens of Falls Church vehemently opposed the PATRIOT Act, so I find it hard to believe they would simply turn around and support a measure enabled by it. Just to drive the point home, let’s recast the issue with respect to other rights: “Close the Terror Gap that leaves those on the terrorist no-fly list off the list of prohibited voters.” or “Close the Terror Gap that leaves those on the terrorist no-fly list off the list of prohibited worshippers.” Doesn’t sound like such a good idea now, does it?
Hannah – There are already multiple laws to keep guns out of the hands of felons and criminals. Unfortunately they don’t care to follow those laws nor will they follow any new laws. That is why they are called criminals. The “coalition” seeks to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens because we are the only ones that will follow the laws. You can make all the laws you want but at the end of the day the criminals will still get guns. Again my case in point – drugs. If laws work why do we have such a big illegal drug problem? Maybe we should try to persue and prosecute the laws we already have and exercise tougher penalties for those laws. If we can’t use the laws we currently have who’s to say we will use new laws any better. Criminals realize some people want more laws. They love that because they know that laws restrict what a law abiding citizen can and cannot do. They don’t care as they don’t intend to follow the law anyway.
Luther,
Just curious then–why do we require criminal background checks at all? Do you honestly believe that they are in place just to burden the gun vendor? Should I be worried that your group is going to start lobbying against any and all criminal background checks?
The laws are in place, that is, a criminal background check is required, EXCEPT for private sales and gun show sales. I know criminals will still get guns, but why make it easier for them? Why not make it as difficult for them as we can?
Concerning drugs, I would say addiction has a large part to do with that problem (among other factors); I don’t think the two issues are comparable.
LFS on point #2, you seem to be arguing that a gun shop owner would be instinctively able to hire an employee who would follow the law and not do something illegal with a gun within their reach.
So LFS, why does a police department have an internal affairs division to investigate their own sworn officers who above all should follow the law? Why do we have a medical board to oversee a doctor, who given a license should practice appropriately? Why do we have traffic cops when licensed drivers should obviously follow the speed limit sign? Why have federal workers go through a security clearance before you hire them in sensitive positions when it is obvious that they shouldn’t share state secrets?
Hannah – I am all for criminal background checks and do not support seeing them go away. I will offer this though. Our battle over the 2nd Amendment is just that – a battle. If we (2A advocates) give up on this issue and agree to background checks at gun shows and for private sales then whats next? What if we do that and it doesnt work? Will you next want mandatory registration? Where will it stop? Think about this for a moment from a Constitutional perspective. If we allow one right to be eroded which will be next. We are already seeing attacks on the 1st Amendment. We as citizens must draw a line in the sand and say no more. I want the government to show some due diligence and responsibility by enforcing current laws before we make more. The bottom line is that criminals will always get guns illegally. Make no mistake about that. And the comparison to illegal drugs here is quite valid. It clearly demonstrates that merely making something illegal does not remove it from being available to whomever wants it regardless of motivation.
Charlie,
An FFL that wishes to abide by the law has an economic incentive to have employees he can trust, quite literally, with his life. Even the cheapest of firearms costs hundreds of dollars, and so for one to go missing is a nontrivial economic event for a gun dealer. It’s not like the Burger King employee swiping a couple of fries here and there. I would think that gun dealers have a better idea of how to run their businesses than Mayor Bloomberg, who has never operated as an FFL in his life. And yes, there are dealers who do violate the law and they should be prosecuted, but by Mayor Bloomberg’s own admission the vast majority of dealers are above board, law abiding businesses. I can attest to that. In this past year alone I’ve twice witnessed people being ejected from a gun dealer’s store because the dealer felt the potential customer was attempting a straw purchase or was otherwise up to no good.
The reason police departments have Internal Affairs departments and review boards and that doctors have medical oversight boards is that they are often accused by third parties of wrong doing. Such boards are peers of the accused, and in many cases act as a gating function into the court system or heavily influence court cases. FFLs do not have the luxury of an oversight board composed of their peers. Their oversight is the ATF, which is made up of agents who have an incentive to bring as many indictments as possible in order to advance their own careers.
Which brings up another point about Mayor Bloomberg. I lot of ATF agents do a fine job and are good people, but abuses have been common over the years and there has been a lot of testimony before Congress about it. The ATF once prosecuted a guy for putting “N” instead of “NO” on a yes/no question for the 4473 form. Does that sound reasonable? Does that sound like the prosecution of a criminal or an agent going after a law abiding citizen for the most trivial of technicalities? But Mayor Bloomberg opposes reforms of the ATF that would have them concentrate on true criminals instead of law abiding citizens. Does that sound like the agenda of somebody who respects my Second Amendment rights? No. It sounds like the agenda of somebody who simply wants to ban all guns. I’m all for ATF reforms, and once reformed would be in favor of adding many more ATF agents to go after people who break the law.
Hannah, this post is quite long so I may be missing it, but could you explain to me what current laws allow felons to buy firearms or make it easy for anyone? Can you explain how you want to see the laws changed?
In my experience buying a firearm is a very cumbersome process. I understand my experience is not the same as every other person. I also agree with the process somewhat but it could be streamlined greatly.
I am a City resident. When I want to buy a firearm I look for the best price. I will not share with this blog where the cheapest prices are because that would not be advantageous to me but it is a good hour+ drive from here if you’re lucky. The inventory is not available on line so I must travel to the store and look at inventory, if I don’t find something I like I must drive another hour home. If I do find the right firearm I complete paperwork. I then have to leave (another 1 hour drive) and come back the following day another 2 hours of driving for a total of 4 hours of driving. I have to come back because I am always delayed in the check. This is a pain in the neck. But I understand the need for the check so I am o.k. with it.
If I were a felon I know I would never try to buy the gun in the first place but let’s say I was that ignorant, then the check would show that I’m and the gun would not be sold to me.
Help me to understand how the current process is easy on anyone trying to buy a firearm or how felons can purchase a gun through the current process.
Thanks
Tony,
You mention your travel to the gun store, so you are buying from a (registered) gun dealer and therefore have to comply with the law. If you were buying from a private seller (including, but not limited to, those at gun shows) you would not have to undergo the background check and the process would be much easier and quicker for you. The problem is, it is also easy and quick for a felon. They can’t buy a gun from a store because they would be denied (due to the background check) so their best bet is to buy from a private seller and avoid the background check. This is the “loophole” we would like to see closed. I’m glad you don’t mind the extra trouble you have to go to in order to purchase a gun; it sounds like you are reasonable and understand the importance of a background check. I think we agree! Thanks, Hannah
Hannah, I also buy from individuals, as well as trade, and sell my own guns from time to time. I get somewhat of a premium from buyers because they don’t want to deal with the hassle I am willing to deal with. Myself and all of my gun owning friends would never sell a firearm to a felon because of the obvious reason and the fact that we then become felons, jail, job loss, fines, loss of 2nd amendment rights, loss of the right to vote, etc, etc, etc.
How do you suggest that the loophole is closed? Are you saying you think it is wrong for a legit gun buyer to be restricted in their ability to trade a legal commodity with buyers who would qualify to purchase firearms on their own?
I understand your angle (legit gun owners could unknowingly be selling arms to felons) but you would be restricting my rights in the process and making me a criminal for what is not a criminal act (selling to a qualified buyer). How would you plan on closing this loophole? What would be your ideal process for the exchange of arms between legit arms owners?
Hannah, do you or your organization have any data on crimes involving guns, committed by prior felons, who acquired the gun through a personal transaction with a legit gun owner, post prior felony conviction? I would be very interested in this data. It would be the only relevant statistic that could prove there is a loophole “problem”. I assume there are cases of this happening but if it has happened, say, 100 times in the last year then I think restricting my rights is out of the question. I assume that more gun crimes involving legit owners occurs each year than the loophole crimes.
If you can point me to that data I would be interested in seeing it. I am also interested in the process you suggest for a private firearm exchange between qualified individuals.
Thanks
Tony, aka Iron Man -
I can’t trade or sell my car to another without notifying the government, why should I be able to trade or sell my gun without doing so. Both require significant skill, training and care to use, and both have potential dangers associated. We’re not talking trading and selling baseball cards here! And if you get a premium for selling directly to someone and avoiding the “hassle,” isn’t this exactly why all transactions should be tracked and documented? And do you really trade and sell guns on a regular basis? It doesn’t seem to be that kind of hobby, like stamp collecting or matchbox cars. These are weapons for goodness sake!
Charlie, go to any gun show in America or and gun shop and you will see what a business guns are. As far as collecting guns it is a very very popular hobby in the U.S. Guns make a great investment even, because quality firearms never go down in value and there are never a shortage of demand.
Charlie when I sell a vehicle I sign the title over to the new buyer. I never see that they have a valid driver’s license. I then turn my tags in at DMV. I only tell the government that I have sold a vehicle, NEVER who I have sold it to, they don’t even ask. Am I overlooking something here, am I missing a step? When the buyer registers the vehicle then the government knows who is now the owner, but if the new owner never registers the vehicle then the government has no clue who the new owner is.
One other thing Charlie, I do not agree with current rules in VA surrounding personal auto sales. Here is why: I buy a new vehicle and pay sales taxes on it, I sell it 3 years later and the new buyer pays sales taxes on it, and 30 years later when it is sold for the 50th time why should that new buyer have to pay sales taxes on an item that the state has recieved taxes on 50 times??? If you sell your tools or couch the government does not tax the new buyer. Not to mention the government would get personal property taxes every year. So when private individuals sell there vehicles the government gets extra money above and beyond what they would get is the vehicle stayed in the same owner’s hads. Sounds like a raw deal to me.
So if you think guns should have similar rules to autos I have to oppose taxing citizens for something that they have never been taxed for. Charlie I will even be willing to notify the govt. when I sell or trade a REGISTERED gun but just like an auto I would not offer up the name of the new buyer if not asked and and if I have an unregistered firearm I would not have to do anything just like with vehicles.
Charlie, guns made in the 1700-1800s are around today, they are very valuable, and no one is committing crimes with these things, they are exactly like stamps and matchbox cars in that respect. It is a very very very general observation to assume that all guns are modern and not collectable.
Cars are not protected or mentioned in any ammendments, the right to have and right to use arms ARE mentioned and protected. For that reason I think it is hard to make an apples to apples coparison of the two. That is just my take on things.
Tony,
How do you know you are not selling to a felons? If you don’t do a background check, how do you know? You can’t tell just from looking at someone whether they are a felon or not, and I doubt many felons would be willing to admit it if they were trying to buy a firearm!
As for statistics from “my organization”. I must add here that i am just a busy mom of three who happens to have strong feelings about keeping those kids (and others) safe. I don’t actually have an official affiliation with an organization; I went to city council (and participated in a couple of lie-ins) because I care about the issue. However, I am sure that ProtestEasyGuns or the Brady Center or some of the other organizations have some of those statistics on line. I know I have read them somewhere. I am going to officially sign off of this exchange now as I have a very busy week ahead with my family! Thanks, Hannah Jordan
I typically trade or sell firearms to my Grandfather, Great Uncle, and have sold 2 to friends from work who had to have a background check to work at the bank I worked with. I do not know the co-workers backgrounds and come to think of it maybe they could have been felons and still worked for the bank. Maybe felons due to too many DUIs or something of that matter. I am not sure what the bank allows other than no drug, theft, and crimes similar to that. They each owned other guns and when asked if they were felons they said, “no”. I felt comfortable that they were not felons.
If either of them committed a crime with one I felt comfortable saying to law enforcement “I sold that gun to _______ back in 20__ when we worked at _____ together. Just like if the gun shop sales a gun to John Doe and then he decides to commit a crime with it then the gun shop has done their duty and can say to law enforcement we sold him that gun on this date. All felons are non-felons at some point in their lives.
Tony, aka Iron Man:
I think you made a credible argument with regards to comparing car registration to gun ownership, but it is in the best interest of the citizens if the government tracked gun ownership and movement of guns. If you sell your gun to someone who uses it in a crime, it would be good to know who had it last without having to come back to you. When I hire someone in my office, I run a background check on the person – they may look okay, but how can I really know? You can’t really rely on someone else’s report, you have to do the work yourself.
Charlie,
You are arguing for more regulation to infringe upon the rights of gun owners. However, you give no numbers as to how much crime your new regulations will prevent. Given that in the past 20 years crime in the U.S. has steadily decreased while access to guns by law-abiding citizens has increased, don’t you think you should provide some basis of rational for enacting new laws that make it harder for law abiding citizens to have access to firearms?
You advocate gun registration, but historically gun registries have been used for confiscations while not preventing any crime. They are considering scrapping a registration system in Canada, and leaders in New Zealand and Australia have admitted that their systems have done nothing to prevent crime. In Germany, it is estimated that 80% of all guns are not registered despite it being the law. The simple truth is, criminals do not register their guns.