search
top

Gun Show Recommendation in Virginia

Looks like they managed to stop a recommendation of banning private sales.  Very good.  What they got was this:

Despite some opposition Tuesday, the commission recommended that lawmakers consider requiring Virginia State Police to be on hand at some gun shows to help monitor firearms transactions. The cost of the troopers’ presence would be borne by gun show promoters.

What exactly are they going to monitor here?  I would say no harm in this if the cost wasn’t pushed to the promoters.  Not all shows are large, and profitable enough to cover this.  I have no problems with law enforcement being present at gun shows, in fact, I think they should be.  But if the people arguing for this suggest it’s a public good, the public should bear the cost.

4 Responses to “Gun Show Recommendation in Virginia”

  1. jmt says:

    It isn’t about public good, it about adding a fee to the promoters while appearing to be “safe”. The point is to reduce the number of gun shows. :-P

  2. Sebastian says:

    Oh, I don’t disagree, but I don’t see any reason not to throw their stated aim back in their face.

  3. N.U.G.U.N. says:

    It’ll probably be as effective as California. The following was a friend of mine’s experience buying his first rifle. Which took place at a gun show.

    http://bad-doings.blogspot.com/2009/01/gun-show.html

  4. ChamberedRound says:

    Last time I checked, two parties choosing to transact business with each other was considered a private affair. Even in the case of a firearms transaction, where the buyer must undergo a background check, such a check isn’t a direct correlation to a purchase. It is possible (although admittedly not probable) that a check could take place and a buyer choose not to purchase after the fact.

    In any event, when a background check process is already in place (and is IMHO an infringement in and of itself), agents of the government should not need to be present for two parties to do business with one another. I really hope that those who suggested and/or support such an idea see the forest for the trees on that one, as if such a process were to be extended to other types of transactions, we could find ourselves being forced to ask the government to buy things like groceries, clothes, and fuel. Worse, and as was previously suggested, people may be coerced into NOT buying something by the government, or the corrupt agents thereof.

    I’m pretty sure that’s not what one pictures when the words “free society” come to mind.

top