Amendments II Democrats get a story on regional magazine (D Magazine)

[Xela]

Way to go guys!!!

http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/2009/07/01/A_Liberal_Democrat_Who_Loves_Guns.aspx

(oops, quick edit on subject line)

Xela

[Tim01]

1. Woo Hoo! Kudos!!

Way to go!:toast:

[X_Digger]

2. Cool! n/t

[derby378]

3. Aw, shucks...

Thanks, guys! :blush:

[Xela]

4. Doing an Amazing job...

The recognition is well deserved.

http://a2dems.net/

http://blogs.myspace.com/a2dems

http://armedtexasdemocrats.blogspot.com/

Bravo buddy :)

Xela

[virginia mountainman]

5. Absolutly!!!

What an example to follow!!!

[votingupstart]

6. very nice nt

[derby378]

7. I appreciate the feedback so far

Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation doesn't seem to have a public e-mail address, so I'm sending a copy of the issue directly to her office in response to her latest call for repressive gun-control laws.

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

8. I'll bet she'll have a good giggle.

I know I always do.

This the one?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/440168/gun_in_sanity

...

Background checks are required for any gun purchase at federally licensed dealers. The result? 1.6 million felons and other prohibited purchasers have been stopped from buying guns. But those same people can go to a gun show in more than 30 states and buy a weapon -- no questions asked. It doesn't matter, for example, if Maryland requires a background check when the same individual can cross into Virginia and buy an assault weapon without a hitch. That's why 4 out of 10 guns are sold by unlicensed sellers without background checks.

The Columbine killings were committed using two shotguns, an assault rifle, and a TEC-9 assault pistol -- all four weapons were purchased from gun shows. The person who bought three of the weapons later said she wouldn't have done so if a background check had been required. Recently, the brother of a Virginia Tech victim was followed by ABC News into a gun show where he was able to purchase ten guns in under an hour -- again, no questions asked.

Senator Frank Lautenberg's Gun Show Background Check Act would require background checks at any event where 50 or more firearms are offered for sale. It wouldn't stop a grandfather from giving his prized handgun to his grandson, as the cynical NRA would have America believe. Nor does it take on the 2nd Amendment. Despite the NRA's whipping gun owners into a buying frenzy over the notion that President Obama and the Democrats are coming after their guns -- a hysteria that has led to a surge of sales at gun shows nationwide -- this legislation does no such thing.

It simply insists -- in the interest of public safety -- that you clear a criminal background check before buying a gun.

"There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole," Senator Lautenberg said when he introduced the bill with 14 cosponsors last month just days after the 10th and 2nd anniversaries of the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech, respectively. "The reason it's still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington."

...

Some particular fact or argument there or elsewhere in that article that you take issue with?

[derby378]

9. It depends on how far you're willing to go

If a parent can't give a hunting rifle to his or her child without a background check being involved, I think that's going too far.

All FFL dealers at American gun shows perform background checks. Private sellers are the exception rather than the rule, but I've noticed that some of these private sellers are now trying to cover their own backsides by at least verifying ID and having some sort of paperwork of their own.

I just think we need to think this whole process through carefully before tightening background check requirements. Every time I've ever purchased a gun in the past, I always went with Form 4473 and a Brady background check - I don't purchase from private sellers, myself, and the one weapon I've inherited from my family does not get loaded, let alone fired.

That said, the article you referenced also demonstrates Heuvel's support for a new semi-auto ban.

[iverglas]

10. why does a child need to own a firearm?

What do we want, children engaging in firearms commerce? Ownership implies the right to dispose of.

Why would the public not want assurance that a child using a firearm has received proper instruction and has demonstrated the requisite care and skill?

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/minor-mineur-eng.htm
(my emphases)

Firearm Users Younger than 18

Those under 18 years of age are not permitted to bring firearms into Canada or to acquire firearms by any means, even as a gift, but they can use them under some circumstances.

A minor’s licence permits the borrowing of non-restricted firearms (ordinary rifles and shotguns) for the following activities:

* target practice
* organized shooting competitions
* hunting
* being instructed in the use of firearms

A minor's licence also permits the acquisition of ammunition, unless there is an age restriction under provincial or territorial law.

As a general rule, the following requirements must be met to be eligible for a minor's licence:

* The applicant must be at least 12 years old. If they are younger than 12, they may obtain a minor's licence only if they are Canadian residents and their Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) determines that they need to hunt or trap to sustain themselves or their family.
* As a general rule, they must pass the Canadian Firearms Safety Course tests before they apply for a licence. However, an exception may be made if they are Canadian residents and they need to hunt or trap in order to sustain themselves or their family.

A licence application form (CAFC 671) can be obtained by contacting the CFO. Non-residents can contact the CFO of the province or territory where they will most likely use the firearm.

A firearms officer may interview the applicant or their parent/guardian, who must first agree and consent to the conditions under which the minor may use firearms, before a minor's licence will be issued.

... Using Firearms Without a Minor’s Licence

Without a minor’s licence, the minor may still use firearms of any class providing they are under the direct and immediate supervision of someone who is licensed to possess that class of firearm. This generally means that the licensed person must be close enough to them to take immediate action to prevent any unsafe or illegal use of the firearm.

This provision affects cadets and members of other youth organizations who receive instruction in the use of firearms or who take part in target practice. It also applies to young people who go hunting or who use restricted or prohibited firearms in organized shooting competitions.

What might be wrong with that??

[Caliman73]

12. I don't believe he is talking about a minor child

He is talking about the family relationship. In California the only firearms transactions that do not have to go through a FFL are between spouses, parent & child, and grandparent & grandchild. Before visions of parents giving their 3 year old an AR15 go through your head, note that in California, we cannot own standard AR15's, children under 18 cannot legally possess long guns and people under 21 cannot legally possess handguns. If I wanted to transfer a firearm to my brother or sister, I would have to go through a dealer and have a background check performed.

[Tim01]

11. You make really good points.

My boy has 2 guns and I never even thought about it. His uncle gave him a pistol when he was 5, I hold on to it for him of course. And I built him a 1022 when he was 9, he was ready.
I also have inherited lots of guns. I am the gun guy in the family. So when somebody dies the survivors just hand me the guns because everybody just figures it makes sense.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.