UPDATE: Feldman says:
Finally, Paul, I never said I favored background checks on all gun transfers. It’s no wonder the NRA leadership doesn’t want to meet with you — it could cost them their jobs. I stated very clearly that I support instant criminal background checks at gun shows where sellers do not know who the buyer is — and only at gun shows. Last year, I sold an AR-15 rifle to my buddy in Vermont; he’s a former Chittenden County prosecutor. I know who he is. There are four kinds of people to whom I might ever sell guns outside a gun show: a friend, a neighbor, a relative or a co-worker. In each case, I know the person, period. If your “gun show loophole bill” overreaches to everyone at all times, I’m dead-set against it. It wouldn’t work, would create another bureaucracy and would put off those already suspicious of your real motives because you aren’t limiting the solution to the actual problem: sellers who don’t know the buyers.
The only guns I’ve ever sold are to people I know. Regardless, I don’t agree that a “gun show only” bill is acceptable, because gun shows have never been shown to be a serious problem in terms of availability of firearms for criminal purposes. I don’t think that is a smart trade.
If the Brady Campaign wants a compromise on the issue, they can work on making the NICS system more available to people other than FFLs. Anti-Gun folks would probably do a lot more than bellowing nonsense if they set up booth at guns shows, and ran free NICS checks for anyone who asked, no questions asked. No gun owner wants to sell a gun to a criminal or a whack job, but we don’t want to be forced to go through the FFL dance either. We’d use a free system voluntarily, if it just gave a thumbs up or thumbs down. If the Brady Campaign is really concerned, what could be the objection to a system like this?