February 1, 2010

Obama BATFE Demands Texas Gun Show Require Private-Seller Checks

AUSTIN, Texas (GunReports.com)--An article on Infowars.com asserts that the BATFE pressured a monthly gun show in Austin to force attending private sellers to run background checks on buyers or be shut down.

Darwin Boedeker of Texas Gun Shows provided details of the effort by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) and the Austin police, which shut down the show in mid-January, according to the Infowars.com article.

Excerpts from the Infowars.com article follow:

Darwin Boedeker


Darwin Boedeker, of Texas Gun Shows, says he was forced to issue this flyer under government coercion and the demand of the event center building lease holder.

The BATF pressured lease holders HEB to shut down the oldest gun show in central Texas.

On Thursday, January 14, Mr. Boedeker was asked to meet with representatives of the ATF and Austin police at a building in Austin used for police interviews and interrogations. In addition to Boedeker, the two-hour meeting included the participation of HEB, an Austin grocery retailer. HEB holds the lease on the building where the Texas Gun Shows events are held on the third week of every month.

Police, under the direction of ATF, told Boedeker he would be required to follow their “recommendations” or they would close down his event. Boedeker said he was told “you do what we say or we shut you down.” He said the ultimatum was recorded by the police and ATF.

Mr. Boedeker indicated enforcing the ATF recommendations would destroy his business. He said he would not issue a public notice unless it indicated the so-called recommendations were issued by the Austin Police and the ATF.

In order to make their case, the ATF and APD cited numerous alleged criminal cases associated with a previous gun show organizer. Mr. Boedeker said the ATF and APD did not seem aware that he is not associated with previous gun show events at the location.

Mr. Boedeker said he is far down on the “totem pole” of gun show events and he believes this is why the police under the direction of the ATF engaged in criminal racketeering against him.

Mr. Boedeker’s flier [sic] issued under government coercion and the demand of the event center building lease holder states:

“At the direction of the Austin Police Department and the The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms anyone selling a firearm at this show location will be asked to comply with the following:

  1. Any person selling a personal firearm must go through a licensed FFL Dealer in the show to transfer the firearm to the new owner.
  2. Selling of Firearms in the parking lot will not be permitted.
Thank you for your cooperation!”

Police officers dressed in street clothes attended the event and watched participants, according to Mr. Boedeker. The police admitted to him they are interested in forcing gun shows to provide background checks on buyers.

Here's the Austin Police Department's statement about the situation:

www.Statesman.com

Here's the link for Texas Gun Shows, with several links to other sources:

TexasGunShows.net

Comments (86)

Amen to that Jeff W.

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 13, 2010 9:09 AM    Report this comment

I work in a field that exposes me to all sorts of people within the United States. The most intelligent, pleasantly mannered and honest are "Country Folks". If I had to pick a State that had the most honest, intelligent and courteous people it would be North Dakota (Based on my experience so far). On the other end of the scale would be Florida. Florida is the Fraud Capitol of the U.S. In Florida you can witness a person go from being confrontational and demanding to crying, and then shortly later begging for you to look the other way so they can commit Fraud. This behavior troubles a Country Boy because he is taught at an early age that a man is only as good as his word. If a man's word is no good, then, the man is no good. I must admit, it is relaxing to me when I go back home, slip out of my Haggars and into my sandstone bibs to start working out in the yard.

Posted by: JWallace | February 12, 2010 8:15 PM    Report this comment

I'm a country boy as well. I don't think I could be any more proud of that fact than I am. I was raised working on a beef farm. There have been plenty of instances where people have let it be known that they thought they were smarter than me. And there are plenty of people that are. But from what I have seen there are few that have the real-life knowledge that I have that are anywhere near my age. I get frustrated talking with most people that are near my age because they generally have such idealistic viewpoints. It's even harder to talk to people that are significantly older than I that cannot see the reality of a situation if it smacks them in the face. It's like they have the real-life knowledge of a 3-year old. It also frustrates me that our goverment is full of this type of people!

In God We Trust, if it wasn't for this I think these dreamy-eyed people would have already driven me crazy.

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 12, 2010 2:08 PM    Report this comment

Hillbilly, sure right, Iam a Country Boy also the liberals I have tried to talk to keep calling me a hillbilly and I tell them they are not PC, I am closer to being a Redneck, infact a edumacated Redneck so that makes me even more dangerous, and Proud of It. LOL
God Bless America and Our Troops Past, Present and Future.
Keeping to My Oath Locked, Loaded, and Keeping My Powder Dry.

Posted by: bear1 | February 12, 2010 11:24 AM    Report this comment

Ignorant hillbilly is a term only a city liberal would use. The people that use this term are the same ones out there bashing Gov. Palin every chance they get, city elite liberals who think they are better and smarter than everyone else. I'm a country boy and proud of it.

Posted by: Robert J | February 12, 2010 10:38 AM    Report this comment

I'm proud to be in such good company Jeff W.:-) It made me laugh when he called me a dumbass. I've been called worse, by people that I actually respected their opinion, when I pissed them off with some of my opinions. But at least they were open to discussion afterwards.
It actually pissed me off when Glenn call Lee W. An "ignorant hillbilly" but I know Lee W. isn't so I decided that it would be best if I didn't fall into the same category as Glenn by calling him what I what I would have liked to, for that statement.I don't want to stoop to that level. And they probably would not have allowed it to be posted on this site anyway. There is no sense in saying things like Glenn was saying. This post has been the worst, I have been a part of, where people allowed someone like Glenn to get under their skin as well. And no, I'm not fussing at anyone. It's hard to let sh!t like that go; especially when he's directing it at someone else who's opinion you agree with. Keep up the good fight! I'm proud to have you all on my side concerning the Constitution.

In God We Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 11, 2010 12:03 PM    Report this comment

An engineer? Like, with an engineering degree? Man, what makes someone with that skill level, and that knowlege base, completely fall apart like he did here? You know, if I had known how hard-up he is, I could have gone easier on him. I am so sorry for him.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | February 10, 2010 8:32 PM    Report this comment

Hey, agoodstat. Welcome to Glenn A's Established "Dumbass Club" I'm a proud Board Member. Glenn is a former Ford Engineer who is currently managing an Auto Service Center. I'm sure he is using his fine engineering skills to accurately maintain stock control. I must admit that Glenn did make me laugh when he called Gaviota an Ignorant Hillbilly. The statement may be untrue, but the outburst sure was funny.

Posted by: JWallace | February 10, 2010 7:34 PM    Report this comment

Actually Glenn, I (and many others here) usually find Gav's comments insightful and on target. I have never seen him tear somebody apart until they begin baseless accusations.
As my 1stSgt used to say: "You put the quarter in the jukebox, now you can dance to the tune."

Expressing an opinion that our government is drifting astray of our founding principles is not fear mongering. Using some of Janet Reno's escapades to illustrate Marines are preparing for house to house firearms confiscation is. Nobody here is saying anything like the latter.

My grandparents have all passed on, as have our founding fathers; that does not mitigate their wisdom or foresight.

I say again, if you want rational, logical debate, bring it. Bring emotional outbursts, and that's what you'll get. I doubt you see it that way though.

Posted by: PVB | February 10, 2010 2:18 PM    Report this comment

aGoodstat, as usual, you are the voice of reason in an unreasonable world.

We've pretty well exhausted the possibilities of continuing this dialogue with Glenn. When a guy drags a conversation down to the schoolyard taunt level, there's nothing constructive left to say.

To all of you who kept up their end and behaved like statesmen, oorah. The gun rights fight is in good hands.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | February 10, 2010 12:17 PM    Report this comment

Glenn A was correct in his point that gun laws have relaxed over the last 5 years, thanks to the Republicans generally speaking(few Democrats). However, you currently have a President who has repeatedly voted against gun rights. A Speaker of the House and leader of the Senate who have repeatedly voted against gun rights. A Vice President who has voted against gun rights. These are the 4 most powerful people in the country who have proven themselves to be against gun ownership. These are facts. So are we chicken little to believe it is very possible for these 4 people to get together and make a grab for our guns since they have the current power positions? Fearmongering or using rational thought? We have to be vigilant about our gun rights. I believe people like Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid given the chance would outlaw guns altogether given the choice/chance. So no, I don't feel like an idiot thinking my gun rights could be taken away.

Posted by: Robert J | February 10, 2010 12:03 PM    Report this comment

Glenn, I guess you are one of these people that also believes that the Constitution of the United States is no longer valid since it was written so long ago?
I would prefer to not hear you calling someone else a crybaby when you are the one that was whining that somebody said something about you that you didn't like.
And why is it that you do not repsond to the questions that I have asked you?
I have not attacked you in any way. I have tried to discuss this topic with you in a civil mature manner but I get no responce. Do I have to call you names to get a responce? It seems like to me that you are looking for a fight more so than a discussion. But you are the one that is saying you want less violence. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 10, 2010 12:02 PM    Report this comment

Well, I guess we finally agree.

Posted by: KCSHOOTER | February 10, 2010 11:54 AM    Report this comment

Yawn.

"Cry and cry if it makes you feel better, put it all down in a tear-stained letter." Jo-El Sonnier

Posted by: Lee W | February 10, 2010 11:49 AM    Report this comment

Lee, when you just can't come up with a response, that's exactly the kind post I expected from you. I am a veteran myself. So I ain't impressed. A post full on insults? Fine with me. You never post anything on here that isn't whinny crybaby bullshit or nutjob fearmongering. Crawl back into your little hole and stay there, you ignorant hillbilly.

Posted by: KCSHOOTER | February 10, 2010 11:36 AM    Report this comment

Glenn, You said some fourteen posts back that you had nothing more to say. I thought that was a good idea, and the most intelligent thing you've said to date. When are you going to act upon it? More importantly, when are you ever going to finally make it through puberty?

I spent over 20 years in the military. I am fully capable of cursing you up one side and down the other, and damning your family back seven generations and never repeating myself once. It's only my respect for myself, other members, and this forum, that I don't do that. You're inability to conduct yourself with maturity, rationality, and respect for others and their viewpoints means that you are not an advocate for liberty, civil rights, and freedom, you are an advocate for Glenn's feelings. In less civil terms, all you do is think and talk out of your vagina. I'm no longer interested in you or your opinions except as an opportunity to point and laugh.

STFU, Glenn. You bore me.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | February 10, 2010 11:29 AM    Report this comment

Glenn - I'm pretty sure you said "The Gov't's only minutes away from kicking in you door and taking your guns." I was trying to point out nobody else did, so it looks like we agree, sort of.

"you can't see how society has changed in over 200 years" Sure I can, but our founding fathers were intimately familiar with tyranny, hence TJ's quote. I used to trust our government to be "reasonable" and would have agreed with you 100% in the past. Unfortunately, too many politicians and otherwise overly powerful people are (yes IMO) doing their best to decide what the rest of us should do and think. (Hence the Mason quote.) If you think I'm being Chicken Little here, that's fine.

"very narrow and isolated world view" My opinion is based in part on what I have witnessed first hand in places like Somalia.

"Over the last 5 years, state-to-state gun laws have become much more relaxed." Which, IMO, is responsible for helping decrease violent crime. Bad guys don't want to die. I hope the trend continues!

"Consider the fact that 2 states disallow concealed carry." You got me here - which two? (Thanks in advance for saving me a trip to NRA's website.)

Now I'M a liberal - lol!

I truly hope you continue to post (perhaps other threads, as this one is getting a little redundant).

Posted by: PVB | February 10, 2010 11:17 AM    Report this comment

Those aren't facts. Those are opinions of men who have been dead for over 2 centuries. The fact that you can't see how society has changed in over 200 years reenforces my statement that you have a very narrow and isolated world view. Congress has the lowest approval rating? Over the last 5 years, state-to-state gun laws have become much more relaxed. Consider the fact that 2 states disallow concealed carry. Compare that to how many allowed it 10 years ago. Nodoby's talking about disarming anyone, I don't even know where that argument came from. We were talking about making sure those who are armed are indeed "peaceable citizens". Your own "facts" don't even support your positions. Just more fear-mongering and liberal-type fingerpointing.

Posted by: KCSHOOTER | February 10, 2010 10:55 AM    Report this comment

Canovack - you are right on the mark! How can we expect the average citizen to act like a grownup when our most visible leaders fail miserably in that regard?

Posted by: PVB | February 10, 2010 10:47 AM    Report this comment

Perhaps Madison will help enlighten?

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

Mr. Adams was very clear in why we need to "NOT BE INFRINGED"

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

Are these the "facts" you desire?

I am wrong plenty of times, and have admitted so on these pages before. Nearly all of the other frequent contributors have as well. Frankly, we all are actually appreciative when someone points out our mistakes and misperceptions.

Your position is quite valid, though most of us disagree. You still fail to see that the validity of your arguments is immediately incinerated by your insipid immaturity.

If you want to be treated like a mature, rational individual, then act like one for crying out loud.

Now it's MY turn to call 'em like I see 'em!

Posted by: PVB | February 10, 2010 10:45 AM    Report this comment

Funny Glenn, I don't see anyone here saying anything about kicking in doors. Oh, and again, who started the name calling here?

You said: "none of which are backed up by a single fact" Au contraire - nearly everyone here brings facts to the table. You, Glenn, are the one who refuses to bring facts and dismisses others' viewpoints as "irrelevant and invalid" even before they speak up. [And before someone spouts "WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED..."]

You also said "This is an issue of conscience, not an issue of law" which further indicates your blindness to logic, rationale, and the Constitution. Mind if I quote Jefferson?

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

How about George Mason?

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Posted by: PVB | February 10, 2010 10:45 AM    Report this comment

Why am I not surprised at GLENN A's little temper tantrum? True to his liberal heart, he takes a last blast at facts, truth, logic, and rational thought, then he bids us a sarcastic farewell along with his last bit of name calling. We regular contributors are becoming pretty accustomed to these little flashes in the pan. But.....what is more troubling than our liberal invaders of this forum is that these little tantrums are repeated on a daily basis in our US Congress. Both Republicans and Democrats want things to go their way, and when they don't get it that way, they too reject, out of hand, anything that might prove fruitful.....Then they shut down. Is it any wonder that this Congress has the lowest approval ratings of any Congress in recent history? My fellow Second Amendment adherents, we need to pay a whole lot of attention to the field of candidates who are entering the races for the November elections.
With so many GLENN A, CLEAT, David, and August types presently holding Congressional seats, we must.....absolutely must.....carefully select whom we are going to support and elect as we "throw the rascals out" in typical 1994 style. God save the Constitution, and may God bless America!

Posted by: canovack | February 10, 2010 10:39 AM    Report this comment

Nothing but chicken little, the-sky-is-failing, foil-helmet assertations, none of which are backed up by a single fact, yet you are demanding facts from others. You sound like bible-thumping, paranoid, conspiracy theorists. The Gov't's only minutes away from kicking in you door and taking your guns. You have a very narrow and isolated world view. Have a nice life, I'm gonna go buy some more stock in Reynolds. (Wonder where the term "gun nuts" came from...)

Posted by: KCSHOOTER | February 10, 2010 9:22 AM    Report this comment

Anti-gunners also fail to consider the economics. There are costs associated with having and enforcing the law. There are costs associated with NICS and CCW processes. Costs borne by the already overburdened taxpayer.

Also, the firearms industry employees a lot of people and generates enormous cash flow. I can't remember the most recent stats I saw for the nation as a whole, but it is far too big a number to ignore. One stat that did stick (American Handgunner, I think) is that for California (2008?) the in-state firearms sales exceeded the global revenue from the entire California wine industry. Wanna bet Nancy Pelosi's vineyards employ more illegals than the entire firearms industry to boot?

Posted by: PVB | February 10, 2010 8:12 AM    Report this comment

Liberals tend to look down on others thinking their opinion is the end all be all of arguements and that anyone who disagrees are just dumb. However, the arguement tends to end when facts are presented. A perfect example of that is the Health Care debate. It was a good liberal idea to give everyone health care, however when the facts are presented it is not economically feasible. Who's going to pay for it? Gun laws are the same way, liberals think they are a great idea, however who is going to pay. Gun owners, not criminals.

Posted by: Robert J | February 10, 2010 6:53 AM    Report this comment

Hey Gav - I work in an industry that is appealing to teenagers. The 14 year old girls I've employed won't run from a fight, and in fact, show a Helluva lot of character. Only on their worst of days would they "take their ball and go home." (BTW, I was thinking exactly the same thing....) They're downright respectable!

The way I see it is this - why post on-line if you don't want feedback? That's like walking in the house and saying "Honey, I bought another gun" and expecting a ticker tape parade....

Posted by: PVB | February 9, 2010 9:57 PM    Report this comment

For the benefit of guys like Glenn, Cleat, August, and David, learn this: We're guys, for cryin' out loud. MEN! Not women! (Apologies to the visiting ladies. Please don't read any further. The following statements are Guy Secrets.) We don't care about feelings! Women care about the emotional content of communications as much or more than the informational content, Men don't. Sure, we have feelings, but we don't particularly care about our own feelings, so we sure as hell don't care about anyone else's. Feelings just tend to get in the way. What Men need is DATA! We need facts, figures, charts, tables, and graphs. We need definitions, standards, and measurements, we need theory, philosophy, logic, and scientific rigor. Jump into the debate and state your piece, by all means, but don't give us your feelings on the subject, because nobody cares. Give us facts! Give us data! If you can support your assertions, great, you're the MAN, but if you can't, stay on the porch, kid. And if you start off with insults, stand by to have your ass barbecued and fed to you.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | February 9, 2010 8:23 PM    Report this comment

Hear, hear, canovack. I heartily second the sentiment.

Why is it that these little "debates" always seem to go the same way? One guy shows up in the house, slings some mud, yells about his feelings, utterly fails to support any of his assertions, and then when a dozen other people post numerous well-researched and well-documented facts to refute the unsupported assertions, the mudslinger gets huffy, whines that HE's being called names, complains that no one is addressing his points, and takes his ball and goes home. Their conversation always revolves around them. The thing that staggers me is, after DAYS of debate, over FORTY posts discussing our differences in great detail, with well-researched facts, well-documented assertions, anecdotal experiences, loads of political and legal philosophy, all of it on-point, Glenn A says this:

"...I have nothing more to say, as our differences aren't really being discussed..."

Judas H. Tapdancing Priest!!! What the hell is that? That's the kind of petulant dismissal I'd expect from a sulky fourteen-year-old girl, not a grown man! I'm not calling Glenn a liberal, but that's the same pattern of behavior that we saw in our debates with Cleat, August, & David, those proud, self-avowed liberals, who were particularly egregious in their failure to adhere to basic logical and rhetorical standards. Their entire universes were contained in their six-foot diameter Circle Of Me, so everything was all about them and their feelings.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | February 9, 2010 8:22 PM    Report this comment

There are a number of little catch phrases I have seen and heard over my numerous years as a proponent of the Second Amendment. Such little ditties as
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", along with "An armed society is a polite society", plus "Gun control is about people control", and of course "Gun control is being able to hit your target". All of these quotes convey valid points, but I must credit PVB with a well stated saw: "Gun control is always about control, seldom about the guns".
It succinctly wraps up some pretty obvious points into one statement. By and large, this forum is a really great place to share ideas and occasionally to get into arguments. Each time I see a new message alert in my e-mail inbox, I get excited about what I am going to read and, perhaps, what I am going to write. It is well worth the subscription to "Gun Tests" just to get access to this forum.

Posted by: canovack | February 9, 2010 3:15 PM    Report this comment

GlennA - "I believe certain gun laws are reasonable. Several of you seem to disagree. Neither of us is going to change the other one's mind." I truly hope we never find ourselves in the position where you change your mind after the laws are no longer "reasonable." Certainly, we cannot have a lawless society; however, excessive legislation will lead to tyranny.

Are you aware how many gun laws are "on the books" already? The last time I saw a stat on this, there were over 20,000. That's correct; tens of thousands of gun laws, many of which have their origins in the "common sense" variety. Do they help curb crime? No! Look at the most anti-gun areas and compare their per capita violent crime rates to less restrictive places. Crime reduction is inversely proportional to anti-gun legislation; not directly as the emotional "common sense" argument always suggests.

Do you truly believe that Obama, Soros, Brady, and Bloomberg are looking out for your (our) best interests?

Gun control is always about control, seldom about the guns.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: I once held your position that there are "reasonable" gun laws. My personal experiences, observation of elected officials, careful consideration of "news" sources, and healthy debate of the topics have convinced me that we are well beyond "reasonable" at this juncture, especially if you consider the motives of those pushing such legislation, as well as the intent of the Bill of Rights' authors.

Oh, and Just for the record, don't whine about the name calling, especially since you threw that stone first on this page.

Posted by: PVB | February 9, 2010 12:12 PM    Report this comment

Glenn A, I can say that I was honestly wanting to discuss this with you and I was respectful because I feel like we are on the same side (concerning the big picture). I don't want to fight with the people that are on my side (concerning the big picture) but I do want to discuss ideas with them. We grow in knowledge when we discuss with an open mind.
We are all on the same side and I think we need to make sure we remember that. Sometimes that means we have to bite our tongue for the good of the cause.


In God We Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 9, 2010 10:13 AM    Report this comment

I'm all for understanding differences in opinion, in fact I like hearing the other side of things. I don't think you can make a good arguement unless you fully understand both sides. However, there does come a time when facts support one opinion over the other. In those cases, one side tends to be right and the other wrong. Glenn A, your opinion seems to come in the humanitarian form and I respect that. I believe you honestly want good to be done and are willing to sacrfice a little freedom to see that happen, I get it. However, facts don't support that effort. These people on this site are not mainstream gun owners. They are much more schooled in gun rights than the average joe. What I find for me the deciding factor is the motivation of people who pass a law and not so much the law itself. A law may seemed well intentioned, but the motivation behind it is not. That is what these people on this site see, they have done their homework and know the motivation of the liberal left.

Posted by: Robert J | February 9, 2010 9:44 AM    Report this comment

I may not have been called a troll directly, however, "Glenn, if you treat your friends like this, how do you expect to attract supporters to our cause? Or don't you care? ......
You can also tell a Fudd this way: when their assertions are challenged, they start calling names just like a liberal. Little Mr. Ain'tNeverWrong Fudd does nothing to advance The Cause, so like trolls, it's just best to ignore them." And, after being refered to as such, plus as a "liberal leftist", Brady supporter, etc., I have nothing more to say, as our differences aren't really being discussed here. I believe certain gun laws are reasonable. Several of you seem to disagree. Neither of us is going to change the other one's mind. So good day.

Posted by: KCSHOOTER | February 9, 2010 9:20 AM    Report this comment

Robert J - good analogy. I used to hire commercial drivers. One would think that if you have a CDL, and your subsistence depends upon that license, you would be more careful with anything pertaining thereto. In my state, you must show proof of insurance (they call to check) and have a valid license. I was continually amazed how easy it was for CDL drivers to get their license suspended, yet still be able to buy a new car. Not only are people determined to do what they want, there are plenty of others who will support them in such ventures for a small fee.

I also observed an incredibly high rate of uninsured motorists being involved in accidents. In two cases, my employees were hit by the uninsured motorists while on the ground near their massive commercial vehicles. We are a no-fault state, yet charges are seldom filed because the uninsured is usually able to find someone who will "produce" coverage after the fact.

In both "life lessons" here, all of the behaviors I mentioned are already illegal, yet nothing lasting ever happens to the criminal. Would more laws have helped? No! They would only serve additional taxpayer costs and further intrude into the lives of people who obey laws.

I fully understand and can even empathize with "feels good" legislation, though I will not agree or support it in any way. Though often well intended, it is naive and idealistic at best. (Not talkin' about Brady, Soros, etc.)
Our nations leadership would better serve if they set an ethical example and function under our Constitution as it was intended. Where would our economy be right now if they had followed some semblance of ethics, such as an anti-nepotism policy? I would argue we would be far better off without all of those Goldman-Sachs cohorts calling the shots. Yet again, much of what was done and is being done is already against the law.

Presumably well intended, but very naive.

Posted by: PVB | February 9, 2010 8:14 AM    Report this comment

Glenn A a good example to show you the light substituting a car for a gun. So you have a problem with a few car owners driving recklessly endangering the public. What do you do? Do you make a law that makes it more difficult for people to sell cars to one another? Tax them more on registrations? Do something to the people you catch driving this way? When you substitute car for gun it shows how these laws actulally do nothing to address the problem. You stated your friend with a FFL would turn down at least one felon a year trying to buy a gun. Do you really thing that that felon gave up and said "O.K. can't buy a gun legally, no more crime for me". You call it common sense gun laws, however when logic is applied there is no sense to it at all.

Posted by: Robert J | February 9, 2010 7:16 AM    Report this comment

The difference in opinion I see with Glenn A is he is playing right into the Brady/Soros plan. That is to pass what appears to be common sense gun laws that the general public will find reasonable, little by little eroding gun owners rights and actually doing absolutely nothing to stop crime. It is feel good legislation, however these laws appear to be acceptable on the surface to the general public. The question to ask yourself is "Do you want to be dumbed down by the mainstream media or do you want to do research and find the facts for yourself?" The facts are these laws have been proven to do nothing to stop crime. Maybe our efforts should be towards keeping violent criminals in jail where they belong. You will not hear anything out of the Brady/Soros camp suggesting that. So this should tell you what their true intentions are: To erode your gun rights one step at a time and do nothing about violent criminals.

Posted by: Robert J | February 9, 2010 7:08 AM    Report this comment

Hey Gav - I knew I'd seen a troll posting somewhere, though it certainly isn't on this page. You are correct - nobody called Glenn a troll.

Meanwhile, over on the "Public Face of Gun Rights" forum, you had a very specific reference to "flame the troll" after TW3 called you a liberal and said you don't need any more kool-aid. However, TW3 later stepped up and apologized, as you know, and civilized debate continued thereafter.

I'm not sure how that could be construed to be directed at someone else though, even if they were reading all the forums, but perhaps that was the "trool" comment objected to by Glenn.

Posted by: PVB | February 9, 2010 6:27 AM    Report this comment

Hence the differing viewpoints: You appear to favor greater "reasonable" government intervention, whereas I opine that we law abiding, responsible citizens have already made enough "reasonable" sacrifices in the name of "common sense."

Remember, our society was founded on a "reasonable person" theory which still is used in the courtroom. Those whose behavior you wish to correct through additional legislation are not what I (and probably many others on this forum) would call reasonable people. No other human or organization is a better control of my own behavior than me. As I stated before, I would choose NOT to conduct a private transfer of a firearm, nor an automobile, nor alcohol (as for instances) to someone I do not know, or whose character I cannot verify. Does that sound reasonable?

Finally, while our founding fathers were creating a society for reasonable persons, they were also very careful to place limits on the government, as they were of the belief and experience that government authority may easily be abused, thus becoming unreasonable.

FWIW - I'm simply trying to debate - I gave up being correct after I got married!

Posted by: PVB | February 8, 2010 8:58 PM    Report this comment

Ya know - a system that is "deeply flawed because the data entered into it is frequently incorrect or incomplete" is merely a reflection on human competence (or lack thereof). What I find especially galling is that there is no recourse for a citizen inadvertently wronged, nor can a citizen be aware if they are on a secret list.

Posted by: PVB | February 8, 2010 7:57 PM    Report this comment

Glenn;

The problem with your philosophy is that you don't understand that a priori legal restrictions are anaethma to liberty. Because the law doesn't affect criminals, and only impacts the law-abiding, it is no longer a limit on governmental power, and has become another tool for corrupt officials to abuse the liberties of the honest citizenry. That means the NCIS check IS NOW BEING abused, because it is badly maintained, supported, and operated. This abuse is already happening, and there have been numerous articles posted here in Gun Reports about the efforts by various Senators and Representatives to use their illegal, secret government "watch lists," including NCIS, to deny honest citizens their liberties to fly, buy guns, and move freely around the country. The NCIS check is, as I've pointed out, deeply flawed because the data entered into it is frequently incorrect or imcomplete, or data is simply not even submitted for entry.

Expecting secret government lists like the NCIS to prevent criminals getting guns and promote public safety is a fool's delusion. There is no such thing as "public safety" and there never has been. Since we can never be safe this side of the grave, we, as citizens, have only one choice. We can be free, or not.

I choose to be free. "Common sense" be damned.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | February 8, 2010 5:44 PM    Report this comment

"Some gunlaws are good ideas. And before someone spouts "WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...", it's the part where the criminals and the insane are allowed to purchase guns, no questions asked. A little common sense would go well with you fight for the right."

Glenn, here's where your error lies: Gun laws do not, have not, will not, and cannot prevent criminals from acquiring guns. The purpose of law in a representative republic is NOT to prevent crime. The purpose of law is to restrain Government power by delineating standards of personal and professional conduct, and providing for a consensus-based course of action for the punishment of violators. That's it. Law is intended to prevent oppression by requiring those in power to adhere to rules and restrictions, preventing oligarchy or aristocracy from governing by whim, and providing a legal forum in which property, liberty, and even life may be denied a violator. Prevention of crime is only a side-effect of the proper exercise of law.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | February 8, 2010 5:21 PM    Report this comment

Nobody called you a troll, Glenn.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | February 8, 2010 5:03 PM    Report this comment

"Self responsibility, strict unwavering interpretation of the Constitution, and limited government."

Very well said Canovack.

Posted by: PVB | February 8, 2010 4:48 PM    Report this comment

Glenn A I do want you to understand that I am not trying to fight with you. I feel like, concerning the big picture you and I are on the same side. We just don't agree, at this point, on this topic. I don't expect to agree with evryone on this site but when I don't agree with you I want to discuss what it is that we disagree on.


In God We Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 8, 2010 4:01 PM    Report this comment

PVB, you may have a point. The older I get, the more it seems that the thought processes of many of those "middle of the road types" are
foreign to my mind. While I have, on several occasions in the past, considered myself a moderate conservative, it is becoming apparent to me that in today's arena, where almost everything is up for debate, what I thought was moderation on my part is likely now viewed as being pretty far into the conservative camp. I will continue to hold that the hallmarks of conservatism.....and therefore the hallmarks of my politics.....embrace and embody what I stated above: Self responsibility, strict unwavering interpretation of the Constitution, and limited government. Oh yeah, add to those a belief in God and respect for human life at the instant of conception. Who knows, as I complete the seventh decade of my life, this year, I may be branded a far right crank, but that's OK with me.

Posted by: canovack | February 8, 2010 3:26 PM    Report this comment

Canovack - I think it's quite possible GA is more middle of the road than the posts lead one to infer. There is a huge proportion of people who have forgotten what this country is and why it came to be. Those I know view themselves as progressives, or even slightly conservative, and feel every debated public topic is reasonably negotiable to compromise. It's the same mindset as "I don't need the NRA - nobody is coming after my hunting rifle, so I can live with a few more 'common sense' restrictions on handguns and rifles that aren't a bolt action."

Unfortunately, those "centrist" thinkers don't realize they are playing right into the hands of the Brady and Soros crowds.

Posted by: PVB | February 8, 2010 12:54 PM    Report this comment

It is beginning to look like GLENN A has a relative who has posted in this forum before. Remember CLEAT? In both cases, it became abundantly obvious that they were speaking from the liberal left, in that, like all liberal leftists, they seek to cast our entire society in the image of untrustworthy dim-wits who cannot think for themselves, and therefore must thrust government ever so much further into everyones' daily lives. The hallmarks of the conservatives is that they freely embrace responsibility of self, belief in the constitution as the law of the land, and limited government interference in the lives of citizens.
We are presently encumbered by a liberal leftist who occupies the Oval Office, who consistently talks down to the citizens of this nation, and whose defense for his actions comes out in his own words: "Well, we won the election, so we're going to do things our way". OK, the Massachusetts election to fill the seat of one of the archleftists of all time resulted in a conservative victory. This is viewed in many quarters as a harbinger of things to come this November.....Remember 1994! The pro-Second Amendment forces definitely made themselves felt. This November should be quite interesting.

Posted by: canovack | February 8, 2010 12:38 PM    Report this comment

GlennA - maybe YOU should more carefully read what is said.

For the record: when I said "Should I have to PAY MONEY for the service of a background check on someone I already know is reputable like immediate family? NO!" You countered with "If you are comfortable selling a stranger a firearm without a background check, and it's legal, by all means, feel free." Now do you understand where the stranger/family comment came from?

The reason I disagree with you - and I think I was pretty clear earlier - is that I am sick and tired of having my liberties trampled by well intended legislation that does nothing more than expand the reach of our government. There isn't a gun law on the books that is preventing criminals from getting their hands on firearms, so why should a law abiding citizen like me suffer any more imposition?

Though I normally don't reread old posts I did go back to your original one, at your suggestion. IMO, it was innocuous enough, but where you "stirred the pot" is in how you responded to people who disagree with you. For instance: "Yep, I call 'em like I see 'em. You are the one missing the point. "

Everybody here is calling them like they see them, but most attempt to do it with some sense of decency. Frankly, I don't find your retorts indicative of respectful disagreement; rather, I find them to be of the ilk of elitists who have decided what is best for the rest of society, whether we want it or not. Yep, that's my opinion, and if you disagree, I understand.

Posted by: PVB | February 8, 2010 11:14 AM    Report this comment

I don't know why that last message was sent twice. Oops

You may understand "not wanting the BATF to over step their bounds" but what you are saying you want just extends their bounds. So to keep them from overstepping their bounds we just give them a bigger boundary? That, to me, is like saying - we shouldn't keep the lion in the cage (the cage that protects us and the rest of the zoo animals from him) so we will just let the african exhibit of the zoo be his boundary. Similar things, metaphorically speaking, would happen in our world as would happen within the zoo in that situation. Sooner or later he is going to take over the whole exhibit then it will just be on to the next exhibit, (because there will be another made-up reason for him to need to have that space too) until he takes over the whole zoo.
There are laws in place that punish people that knowingly sell a gun to a criminal. It is also not garanteed that you will not be convicted of a crime for selling to a clean person that takes that gun and commits a crime with it. This alone is reason enough to be sure of who you are selling a gun to. There are people that don't care and will sell to anyone, but they are going to sell to anyone even if you make it law that you have to go through an FFL. And 99% of the time they will get away with it. We can't force people to have a conscience. Especially not by imposing a law that they are not going to abide by in the first place.


In God We Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 8, 2010 10:24 AM    Report this comment

Okay GLENN A. I do believe that you missed my point when I said "..most criminals don't buy guns in a legal manner anyway." My point is, if criminals don't buy guns in a legal manner, but they are still going to have guns no matter what the law is, then why impose more laws on the law-abiding citizen. If a person doesn't feel safe selling a gun to someone without a background check they have the right to go through a FFL and have one done the way the law is now. But don't limit me when I am just selling to people that I would stake my life on.
I actually find it kind of funny that you apologize for calling me a dumbass then justify why you did. Doesn't that negate the apology? Lol. I understand that there are a lot of people that do not understand me and my way of thinking. But I am patient and if a person is willing to have a discussion I will explain myself. I don't mind hearing other peoples' opinions either. I can learn from anyone, even if I don't agree with them.

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 8, 2010 9:34 AM    Report this comment

Okay GLENN A. I do believe that you missed my point when I said "..most criminals don't buy guns in a legal manner anyway." My point is, if criminals don't buy guns in a legal manner, but they are still going to have guns no matter what the law is, then why impose more laws on the law-abiding citizen. If a person doesn't feel safe selling a gun to someone without a background check they have the right to go through a FFL and have one done the way the law is now. But don't limit me when I am just selling to people that I would stake my life on.
I actually find it kind of funny that you apologize for calling me a dumbass then justify why you did. Doesn't that negate the apology? Lol. I understand that there are a lot of people that do not understand me and my way of thinking. But I am patient and if a person is willing to have a discussion I will explain myself. I don't mind hearing other peoples' opinions either. I can learn from anyone, even if I don't agree with them.

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 8, 2010 9:15 AM    Report this comment

Again, you have missed my point. Read my first post. I said I understand not wanting the BATFE to overstep their bounds, but why is having a background check run when selling a gun a bad idea? Not all guns are sold to family members, so if the sale is to someone you don't know, isn't that the safest bet? I agree that we should be able to run this thru NICS ourselves, but I still feel that background checks aren't a bad thing. Unfortunately, you can't say "you need to run a buyer thru NICS, unless you know them and are sure they are a good person", it needs to be a sweeping rule. If you can't see why this would be a good thing, well, nothing I can do to help you. Sorry about the dumbass comment but your statement made absolutely no sense whatsoever, and I didn't reply anymore because you fell into my rule about never wasting time arguing with a dumbass. So did the person that deduced that my immediate family are strangers, and the person who stated that I was a "trool" for having a differing opinion. Some gunlaws are good ideas. And before someone spouts "WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...", it's the part where the criminals and the insane are allowed to purchase guns, no questions asked. A little common sense would go well with you fight for the right.

Posted by: KCSHOOTER | February 8, 2010 8:13 AM    Report this comment

Canovack and Lee W. I always enjoy your posts.There's a lot I can learn from you both. I like how articulate you are and that you can and do keep your cool.
I share some of your posts with friends of mine that don't participate in this site because of time issues. Keep up the good work! And thank you for your support.

In God We Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 6, 2010 11:24 PM    Report this comment

aGoodstat, I say OORAH! That was a smokin' exposition of rationality and logic. Good job!

I can easily understand how Glenn A feels personally about private sales, and why he would limit his own freedom in order to avoid a situation that is personally repugnant to him. I fully support his right to do that. What I object to is his apparent belief that anyone who doesn't think the way he does is somehow immoral. I'm sure that he knows that we private sellers do not have access to NCIS, and cannot truly know if a stranger is eligible to purchase a gun from a licensed dealer or not, and while I completely understand his refusal to take that chance, based upon his principles, it is in itself unethical to demand that all others adhere to HIS ethical standards when his standards are based, not on the law, but upon his feelings. He says "...I fail to see the problem with making sure that you aren't selling a firearm to a criminal..." Logically, NO ONE can make SURE. In point of fact, the NCIS, like all government lists, is deeply flawed, so even a dealer who uses it cannot be 100% sure that the buyer is not homicidal, suicidal, criminal, or just downright mud-fence ugly.

A man has to answer for the wicked that he's done. No one should ever have to answer for another man's evil.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | February 6, 2010 6:34 PM    Report this comment

Well, Goodstat, you haven't heard much from me disputing your posts, because you and I appear to have been schooled in the same, rational, logical, practical, and pragmatic educational system. This system includes large doses of patriotism, analytical thought, and scientific methodology. While we are a nation of laws, those who depend wholly on whatever laws are promulgated for whatever purpose, are those who stand by wringing their hands when laws are broken, as they cry for more and stricter laws that any mute anus (dumbass?) can see will only affect the law abiding. One of the most important ideas for anybody who has a wit of common sense, is to realize that criminals, by definition, have never.....do not now.....nor will ever.....obey the laws. This concept just does not seem to register in the cerebrum of the liberal left. By the way, while I have yet to hear from Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay Hutchison concerning my contacts with them, today I did view a televised debate between them and a third, alsoran candidate, in which the topic of firearms freedoms was treated. All three of them are embracing the Second Amendment, to the point that Perry and Hutchison stated that they will not permit metal detectors to be placed in state office buildings. Now, this is something that really stands out. I am not familiar with the laws of other states, but in Texas, we can.....as I have done.....enter the capitol building while both houses of the legislature are in session, while carrying my
concealed handgun. Try that in some of our totalitarian states, and see what happens!

Posted by: canovack | February 6, 2010 5:43 PM    Report this comment

Well,these people that I try to discuss differing opinions with on this site all seem to disappear after I make a strong point. They all remind me of my wife, if we are argueing and I make a strong point she just says, "I don't want to talk about it anymore." Yeah, I wonder why? (Don't get me wrong, I'm not argueing to make myself look good. I am discussing my viewpoints to help people understand my viewpoints because I feel that I understand the reality of some of these topics.)
Let's keep fighting the good fight to keep our rights! We need to make sure everyone knows the truth.
When I do say something that is incorrect I expect each of you to correct me.

In God We Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 6, 2010 4:42 PM    Report this comment

We must keeping fighting for our gun rights. Join and support the NRA. Keep pressure on your elected representives.

Posted by: Deer Man | February 6, 2010 11:30 AM    Report this comment

Gav - you're right, as usual. Unfortunately, I am actually related (not immediately) to a few Fudds. Most family and friends are not though, so I can live with it and stay away from the topic at family functions. They just don't understand, and never will. They won't get it until we say "Th-th-tht-th-taht's all folks!"

Yep - I should apply your Rule, but in a weak moment - I couldn't resist. I'm sure you understand!

Meanwhile, I'm waiting for my constitutionally protected but over-regulated .22 with a built in silencer....

Posted by: PVB | February 5, 2010 7:48 PM    Report this comment

"Yep, I call 'em like I see 'em."

Glenn, if you treat your friends like this, how do you expect to attract supporters to our cause? Or don't you care?

PVB, you have to agree that this world is filled with Fudds, (honoring Elmer Fudd) gun owners who don't believe that it will ever happen to them. Nah, they say, go ahead and pass that restrictive law against private sales, I would never do that. Until the Gov't raises the fees for dealer's licenses by 1000% like Clinton did in the early 90's, and then suddenly there are only 1/10th as many dealers as there used to be, with numbers growing smaller every day. Nah, go ahead, ban that scary black gun, I'll still be able to keep my 12 ga. Fuddgun. Until the govt. decides that doubles, semi's and pumps are now assault weapons, like they did in Britain, Canada, Jamaica, South Africa, and Australia. Nah, go ahead and ban those handguns, like they did in Washington DC, Chicago, Evanston, Morton Grove, and watch the crime rate spiral up like a tornado. Fudds gave us the Sullivan Act, the Bartley-Fox Act, and the Gun Control Acts of 1934, 1968, and 1986. Fudds are everywhere, and they are as obstinate as Missouri mules and just as much fun to argue with. You can also tell a Fudd this way: when their assertions are challenged, they start calling names just like a liberal. Little Mr. Ain'tNeverWrong Fudd does nothing to advance The Cause, so like trolls, it's just best to ignore them.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | February 5, 2010 7:33 PM    Report this comment

GlennA - sorry to hear that your immediate family are total strangers.

For the record, I would not sell a firearm to a total, disreputable stranger, (any more than I would sell them an axe, baseball bat, or Beanie Baby). Again, it is already a crime to sell to a criminal, so if I do, put me in the adjacent cell (but I'm pretty sure I already said that).

aGoodstat - you are 100% correct. New laws won't stop the criminals from getting their hands on guns and we need to enforce the ones we already have. Great point on the name calling!! The argument presented is not one of reason as much as it is emotion. In my opinion, the biggest threat to our freedoms (any, not just guns) are those who naively succumb to the "logic" that this one more restriction won't hurt me and it will help solve or prevent crime. Unfortunately, these "controls" simply aren't the same as an inoculation against Polio, but you understand that.

Mike149 - agreed. I can always take the extra step if I want to, but I don't need Uncle Sam telling me I have to. Not only does it cost me additional money, but even in your example of the car, it costs the government more money to enforce.

Posted by: PVB | February 5, 2010 3:18 PM    Report this comment

Why stop there,the problem is that we must now get an ffl holder involved in our personal sale and that way he makes money on your sale. Can you imagine the whole country like that, you can't sell your car unless you get a car dealer to file the paperwork. Etc, Etc. If they want a background check than as a private seller we should be able to complete the form and call it in ourself and the hell with the dealers...

Posted by: mike149 | February 5, 2010 2:34 PM    Report this comment

The reason I don't mind you calling me a dumbass is because you calling me a dumbass reflects more about who you are than it reflects who I am.

In God We Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 5, 2010 2:31 PM    Report this comment

Cont...
Why not just enforce the laws we have instead of make up new ones that impose upon the law-abiding citizen? So, tell me how me having a background check on my Dad is going to make anybody safer? We have laws in effect that punish people that knowingly sell to a criminal. And tell me,how is it that you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals with this thing of making everyone go through a background check and a FFL to buy a gun? They are still going to have guns! They are criminals! Criminals laugh at people like you that think that some stupid thing like making everyone go through a background check to buy a gun is going to keep guns out of their hands. They bypass the rules we have in place now by having someone with a clean record buy the guns for them! And that's just one way they get them! Criminals would still be buying and having guns if you stopped the sale of all guns in the US! Imposing on the rights of law-abiding citizens is not the answer to solving the criminal problems we have in the US.

In God We Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 5, 2010 2:07 PM    Report this comment

I don't mind that you call me a dumbass.And yes, actually a lot of times it is friends and sometime family that sells each other guns at gun shows.
I would have to say you are wrong GLENN A. Unless of course you are speaking of a different subject than the rest of us. We are talking about the LAW that the BATF and APD said would be broken if you sold a gun to someone without going through a FFL. But just in case you are on a different topic, how is this rule that the BATF and APD put into effect going to change peoples' conscience? Since it's a matter of conscience and you are so sure that this rule they put in place is such a good thing. That doesn't seem quite possible to me. To change someone's conscience by way of enforcing a rule. If that will work then maybe we should enforce some laws that give criminals a conscience! That would be good!

Because I hold true to similar beliefs as Benjamin Franklin at the time he made this comment,"Where liberty dwells there is my country," and, furthermore, "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." is a big part of the reason I do not feel like the BATF, or anyone else for that matter, should be given the chance to infringe upon my rights.

In God We Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 5, 2010 2:05 PM    Report this comment

Yep, I call 'em like I see 'em. You are the one missing the point. If you are comfortable selling a stranger a firearm without a background check, and it's legal, by all means, feel free. Sure, why not? It's not like you'll be the one to have to tell someone's mother that the gun you sold to a stranger without a background check was used by a criminal to take their child's life. What do you care, it wasn't your kid that got killed, and it's not like you broke a law when you sold it in the parking lot of a gun show. You'll be able to sleep just fine at night, right? This is an issue of conscience, not an issue of law. If you are willing to sell a total stranger a gun just because you are legally allowed to do so, that tells me a lot about the kind of person you are.

Posted by: KCSHOOTER | February 5, 2010 12:27 PM    Report this comment

GlennA - I see your point about the background checks, but I think you are missing everyone else's. Punish the crime and the criminal, not the law abiding! I am weary of the number of regulatory restrictions imposed upon all of us for the feels good, knee jerk reaction. Is limiting me to 6 on-line bank transfer a month stopping the flow of terrorist money NO! Should I have to put a quarter in a shopping cart so I'll remember to put it back? NO! Should I have to PAY MONEY for the service of a background check on someone I already know is reputable like immediate family? NO! If I sell to someone who is a felon because I didn't know them, then lock me up too, since that is already a crime!!

Haven't you figured out yet that this is Brady, et al's scheme - get the camel's nose in the tent and go from there? They fully expect to erode the Constitution as we know it one baby step at a time.

If, as you say, "of course criminals don't buy guns in the legal mannor" then YOUR point is irrelevant, invalid, and moot.

Finally, is it really necessary to call someone a dumbass? Would you do that if we were all sitting around a table having this discussion?

Posted by: PVB | February 5, 2010 12:16 PM    Report this comment

AGOODSTAT: Do you think you'd be selling to friends and family at a gun show? Totally irrelevant, completely invalid arguement. As for your other statement, of course criminals don't buy guns in the legal mannor, dumbass, they can't! My FFL dealer has at LEAST one felon a year try to buy a gun thru him, and they get denied thru the NICS system. If it's an inconvenience to you to have to have a background check run on your dad before you sell him a gun, but that same rule keeps guns out of the hands of those who cannot legal own one and thereby purchase illegally, too bad. I'm not sorry for your inconvenience. Just because YOU won't sell a gun to a stranger doesn't mean everyone will.

Posted by: KCSHOOTER | February 5, 2010 11:49 AM    Report this comment

So correct me if I'm wrong GLENN A. You think that anytime a person sells their personal gun that they should be required to have a background check done on the buyer? What if you are my friend and I want to sell you one of my guns? If you are my friend I obviously know you. Should I be required to have a background check done on you before I can sell my gun to you? What if I wanted to sell a gun to my Dad (he has never been in trouble) should I be required to have a background check done on him. I have no problem with a background check being a requirement when buying a gun from a FFL. But I do not want the government or anyone else imposing on my rights to buy and sell property and that includes guns. I don't sell guns to people I don't like. And for the record I don't like people that I get the feeling from that they might possibly do harm to someone for no reason.I don't sell guns to people I don't know. Also, most criminals don't go buy guns in a egal manner anyway. They are criminals so why would they go through buying a gun legally. How many criminals have been caught because they had a background check done in the process of buying a gun?

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 5, 2010 11:22 AM    Report this comment

I fail to see the problem with making sure that you aren't selling a firearm to a criminal. Less criminals with guns equals less gun crime. Less gun crime means less negative public opinion towards guns and gun owners. I understand not wanting the BATFE to overstep their bondaries, but isn't having background checks run on anyone you are selling a gun to a good idea? What if you sell a pistol to someone in the parking lot who then uses it in a crime, shooting an innocent bystander? Are you the kind of person that could live with that? I'm not.

Posted by: KCSHOOTER | February 5, 2010 10:57 AM    Report this comment

Good job canovack!!! Keep up the good work. It is great to see that there are citizens that will stand up for what they believe in. We need more people to do this!

In God We Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 5, 2010 10:14 AM    Report this comment

Here's a bit of an update relating to one of my former postings above. I have communicated my concerns about this to Governor Rick Perry, and I am awaiting his response. I have also communicated my concerns to Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison, who while she is a member of the US Senate and should be concerned with this abrogation of Second Amendment rights, is also a candidate for the office of Texas Governor.
That said, I would expect that having challenged the two most promising candidates for governor, each of them should have something to say and some action to take in order to make their candidacy as attractive as possible for the upcoming Republican primary election that is scheduled for 2 March. This could get interesting.

Posted by: canovack | February 5, 2010 10:04 AM    Report this comment

GET A GRIP ALL!!! What happens in California is NOT isolated to California. Hell, here you can't do anything regarding a firearm without an FFL. Like I have said for years if you hate what is happening in California and do nothing, it won't be long before it is in your state. It's like a cancer. If you don't stop its spread, it will contaminate the whole. Be proactive because being reactive is too late!

Posted by: MasterGuide | February 4, 2010 9:29 PM    Report this comment

Thanks Canovac. In our state, I could sell you a long gun, but need an FFL for a handgun. I was curious about the criminal element since that was touted as the impetus for the "meeting" and "agreement."

Posted by: PVB | February 4, 2010 5:37 PM    Report this comment

I remember , when I was a young pup in the Air Force.We would leave San Antonio for a weekend with all the "Hippie Girls" in Austin.It was like a california town.And, being Military, we were always, and I said, "always' hasseled.Typical Californian type atmosphere.
The NRA need's to get very pro-active.I agree with "canovack" up top there. How does Rick Perry let this happen. WE count on our brothers to the South of us to nip this in the bud............Ghostman from Arkansas

Posted by: Ghostman45 | February 4, 2010 3:40 PM    Report this comment

In answer to the two questions posed by PVB: (1) I have been attending the Austin shows for several years, and during all that time, I have never witnessed any illegal transactions, nor have I observed any identifiable criminals purchasing firearms at the shows. (2) Under Texas law, there has never been a requirement for an FFL, an ATFE Form 4473, or any other sort of documentation of private transfer of any firearm. I agree with Kendal D, that the NRA should have been right there in this fight. Unfortunately, the APD/BATFE "recommendations" were sprung on the show promoter on Friday, for the show that was held on Saturday and Sunday. So, we can see some of the shady methods that were employed by the City of Austin in this abrogation of our Second Amendment rights. It is interesting that our Governor, Rick Perry, who has been a consistent pro-Second Amendment governor, hasn't openly stepped into this fray that was perpetrated right in our capitol city. I'm going to have to ask him about this.

Posted by: canovack | February 4, 2010 3:17 PM    Report this comment

I agree with you "fmrleatherneck." I don't think any of us should wait till this ridiculous activity comes knocking on our door. We need to be proactive if we are going to keep our rights. You can bet the anti-gunners are going to be proactive!
If anyone thinks that guns can't be taken away in America just look at what has happened in other areas around the world. Look at the fact that Hillary is talking to the UN about the U.S. Going by their guidlines.
Did anyone call the NRA to see if they would assist in this situation?

In God We Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 4, 2010 2:35 PM    Report this comment

Sure sounds like the Anti-Gun owners are at it in Austin and using the BATF to do it. God help Texas (AUSTIN) if they become like California, eventhough we are still fighting for our rights with every thing we got out here.
God Bless America and Our Troops Past, Present and Future.
Keeping to My Oath, Locked, Loaded and Keeping My Powder Dry.

Posted by: bear1 | February 4, 2010 2:07 PM    Report this comment

They should have been more clear about how they worded the heading, I agree. But their point was that the BATF along with the police shut down the ability to buy and sell guns at the gun show unless it was through a FFL. This is one of the biggest things about a gun show for a good portion of the people that go to them. That's a big portion of what a gun show is all about. So when you stop that you are essentially shutting down the gun show. You can bet there will not be as many people there next year, if they even have the gun show there next year.

In God We Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | February 4, 2010 1:36 PM    Report this comment

Canovack - 2 ?'s:

How bad was the criminal activity at the show?

In Texas, are you allowed to "privately" transfer a handgun, or do you need an FFL?

Thanks

Posted by: PVB | February 4, 2010 11:49 AM    Report this comment

Well put Canovack. I'm not sure about Texas but correct me if I'm wrong. It is still legal in Texas for a private seller to sell his gun to someone without having to ask the guy anything. Am I right? The NRA should have been there in full force selling guns in front of the police. If they haven't actually changed the law; could they really arrest you if you sold a gun in the parking lot.

Posted by: Kendal D | February 4, 2010 11:49 AM    Report this comment

I hope Mr. Boedeker can quickly find some powerful lawyers to step up and fight these illegal “recommendations” and restore HIS constitutional rights, and the constitutional rights of EVERY PERSON who legally attends his shows immediately! I'm outraged and I'm 1000 miles away from his shows!

How long will it be before such illegal behaviors BY AGENTS OF OUR GOVERNMENT will be at MY doorstep?

I, for one, WILL NOT wait for that day. We need to stand together and demand that these behaviors end immediately. The persons responsible for abusing their positions with these “recommendations” have to be written up, reprimanded, and dismissed on the spot, without the usual government “Golden Parachutes” to “reward” them.

These agencies need to be directing their resources in a manner that gets the criminals off our streets and stop harassing law abiding citizens by demanding they follow made up “recommendations” that ARE NOT required by law. We have enough laws already on the books. Enforce the laws we have, don’t make up “recommendations” and demand they be followed because someone thinks they may be a good idea!

Posted by: fmrleatherneck | February 4, 2010 11:45 AM    Report this comment

As a consistently regular attendee and participant in the gun shows that were held in this venue, it was a sad disappointment to see the shows shut down. I was at the last of these shows, and most of the private collectors who were selling their pieces openly stated that they would not abide by the
"recommendation" provided by APD and BATFE. All of the exhibitors and attendees at that last show exhorted Mr. Boedecker to find another location, out of Austin, so the shows could continue. As of this writing, no new venue has been identified. We are accustomed to gun
shows that are held locally, in the Killeen-Belton-Temple area of Central Texas, with a frequency of every three to four months. The Austin show was held monthly, and despite the
hour long drive, it was a show that I routinely attended every month. There is much speculation hereabouts that the "recommendation" provided was a product of the APD chief of police and the local BATFE office chief. It is not believed that the headquarters of BATFE, in DC, had any input to this travesty. As a Benefactor Life member of the NRA, the question that sticks in my mind is: Where is the NRA when it is needed for countering just this sort of "infringement"?
The Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA) is working on this issue, and I'd imagine that some sort of challenge is in the offing, but until there is a resolution of this issue, it stands as a blatant disregard of our Second Amendment rights by a city that is, in essence, a liberal island in an ocean of conservatism. It becomes understandable how many Californians can really be pro-Second Amendment folks, but the liberal population centers are the seat of the anti-Second Amendment crap with which the rest of California must grapple.

Posted by: canovack | February 4, 2010 11:23 AM    Report this comment

The original, Saxet, gun show was shut down in a dispute with landlords. The new gun show, as I understand it, was a pale imitation of the original and, perhaps because it was poorly attended by sellers, lent itself to being intimidated by LE. Sad, tho Austin likes to think of itself as the San Francisco of Texas, so I guess we can't be too surprised.

Posted by: BILL S | February 4, 2010 11:21 AM    Report this comment

They can get plain clothes LEO's in there after this "meeting" and notice to ensure the promoter follows the "agreement." Couldn't they use those same undercovers, allow the transaction to occur, then track down the illegals and felons making the purchases? That way, you could get the felon off the street!

Posted by: PVB | February 4, 2010 10:51 AM    Report this comment

I do not understand the headline. The story says the show was NOT shut down.
Hysterical screaming about non-existent events just makes pro-gunners look like Chicken Little. Try for a little more restraint, and accuracy, please.

Posted by: glummer | February 4, 2010 10:34 AM    Report this comment

Technically, it wasn't "the Obama administration," it was the BATFEces (with the Austin City Police Department's illegal complicity) overstepping their already unconstitutional authority.

They're coming.

III

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | February 2, 2010 9:15 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In