Another Bloomberg-MAIG Lie About Gun Shows

Another Bloomberg-MAIG Lie About Gun Shows

This is a discussion on Another Bloomberg-MAIG Lie About Gun Shows within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Friday, April 23, 2010 This week, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control advocacy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), began running television ads ...

Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Another Bloomberg-MAIG Lie About Gun Shows

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    620

    Another Bloomberg-MAIG Lie About Gun Shows

    Friday, April 23, 2010

    This week, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control advocacy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), began running television ads urging Congress to "close the gun show loophole." Page 34 of MAIG's Blueprint for Federal Action on guns says that the group supports H.R. 2324 and S. 843—bills that would require NICS checks on private sales of firearms at gun shows, and which also contain provisions designed to drive gun shows out of business.

    MAIG's ads claim "The Columbine school massacre ... killers got their guns because of a gap in the law, called the 'gun show loophole.'" And in a related press release, MAIG claims "All four guns used in the Columbine shootings were bought from private sellers at gun shows."

    The claims are lies, of course. For starters, one of the Columbine criminals' four firearms was not acquired at a gun show. More to the point, however, the other three firearms, while bought at a gun show, were bought for the criminals by a straw purchaser—a woman who was not prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms, and who therefore would have passed a NICS check, if she had bought the firearms from a licensed dealer.

    Furthermore, Bloomberg and MAIG are not telling the whole story about H.R. 2324 and S. 843. Both bills define "vendor" to include any gun show customer who brings a firearm to a show—even for the purpose of selling it to a dealer—or who doesn't bring a firearm, but who mentions to someone at a show that he might be interested in selling a firearm.

    And, H.R. 2324 would impose a "vendor" requirement with which no one could comply. The bill would require show operators to notify the Attorney General, in writing, no later than 30 days in advance of the show, of the name of every "vendor." Of course, there is no way that a show promoter can know 30 days (or 30 seconds) in advance who is going to attend a show, or who might bring a firearm to sell, or who might have a conversation with someone about selling a firearm.

    Both bills also seek to register gun owners. Because of how the bills define "vendor," a gun show promoter would be forced to have everyone who attends a show sign the ledger. And the bills require that the "vendor" ledgers be available to BATFE inspectors. Many Americans would refuse to sign a ledger just to walk around a show, which would reduce show attendance.

    Both bills also would require registration of gun shows. S. 843 would additionally allow the Attorney General to charge an unspecified fee for registering a gun show. The power to set prohibitively expensive fees is the power to destroy, of course.

    Both bills would also authorize the BATFE to conduct warrantless inspections of the required "vendor" (customer) ledger and all records of licensed firearm dealers while dealers are at shows to conduct business—a provision clearly designed to discourage dealers from participating in shows.

    We've said it many times, but it bears repeating. Gun shows account for a very small percentage of criminals' guns. The largest study of the subject ever conducted by the federal government found that only 0.7 percent of prison inmates who had used guns, had obtained their guns from gun shows. Furthermore, firearm sales have increased over the last several years, the nation's murder rate fell to a 43-year low in 2008, and fell another 10 percent in the first half of 2009, according to the FBI.

    And no one should be fooled into thinking that gun control supporters want NICS checks on private firearm sales only at gun shows. In December 2008, the Brady Campaign stated "We agree with the Obama transition agenda that the gun show loophole should be closed, and with Attorney General nominee Eric Holder that background checks should be required for all gun sales. Our national gun policy should be "no background check, no gun, no excuses." (Emphasis in the original.) Their goal is to run all sales through NICS and thereafter change the law so that the FBI would be permitted to retain records of all firearms sales indefinitely. A step in that direction has been introduced in Congress by S. 843 author Sen. Frank Lautenberg. His S. 2820 would allow the FBI to keep records of approved NICS transfers for 180 days.

    [LINK]


  2. #2
    Member Array CenterOfMass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    140
    The sad part is the "sheep" believe this stuff!
    EDC - S&W M&P .45

    "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take." Thomas Jefferson

    http://www.gunrightsreport.com

  3. #3
    Member Array UnklFungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by CenterOfMass View Post
    The sad part is the "sheep" believe this stuff!
    Only in the absence of truth.


    I would like to see counter commercials stating the above. Maybe NRA would be interested in this. I am sure that members would be willing to donate a bit toward it. I USED to be a supporter of MoveOn.org and they asked for donations, even small amounts and they quickly gathered the necessary money to produce and air commercials. They even held contests for people to produce commercials, then those would get aired.
    This type of activism can be very effective, quickly. It doesn't have to be just the special interest groups that get all the air time. WE can too. I guess I'll be sending an email off to the NRA and GOA, JFPF, etc.
    “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

    Patrick Henry
    Quote Originally Posted by UnklFungus
    If it is ok to disarm legal citizens to reduce crime, then doesn't it stand to disband the military to prevent war?

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Gun Shows in MI
    By ojf1982 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 16th, 2010, 12:02 PM
  2. No CC at gun shows
    By Passin' Through in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: April 18th, 2010, 02:03 PM
  3. Gun Shows- NC
    By ncglock in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 27th, 2009, 07:48 PM
  4. Gun Shows
    By Go Glock in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: March 6th, 2007, 05:02 PM