Comments on: Lautenberg’s Gun Show Language

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:09:16 +0000

(A) and (B) are joined with an and. The three points, the third of which is redundant with (A) means that any of those things call you to fall under (B), which is (A) is also true, makes you a gun show.

By: Samsam

Samsam — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:51:40 +0000

The criteria for a gunshow are connected by “and”. There must be 20% selling guns AND 10 people selling AND 50 guns for sale. Home sales would not be covered (except in really odd cases).

This is a terrible law and needs to die, but let us not mis-represent it.

By: Sennin

Sennin — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 06:37:23 +0000

Am I reading the proposed Section 2(d), page 14, of the bill correctly? No reasonable cause or warrant required to perform an unannounced “Inspection” of my home (if I have more than 50 guns in my home – an “event”) by the Attorney General of the United States? While it is perhaps a stretch, the definition of gun show (“event”) promoter seems to cover a lot of territory.

No compromise – kill this bill now!

By: SayUncle » More on Lautenberg’s gun show bill

SayUncle » More on Lautenberg’s gun show bill — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:42:58 +0000

[...] Sebastian has detailed look. [...]

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:35:57 +0000

Pointless to contact McCain, he’s one of the people that started this lunacy by helping create the first one and he’s still said he supports it.

It’s not pointless to contact McCain. He’s up for election, so there’s a good chance to get him to vote no. He can come up with all kinds of reasons not to support this bill, and still say “Well, I generally support this idea, but we need a better bill.”

By: Shawn

Shawn — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:34:30 +0000

The NRA could make it a “score” vote if it ever comes to that. I wrote Kyl. Pointless to contact McCain, he’s one of the people that started this lunacy by helping create the first one and he’s still said he supports it. So if it does go to a vote, even a “score” vote, he’s voting for it. Now he could change on that but really. Once he gets wind I wonder if he’ll co-sponsor it.

I’ve been thinking of selling something at a show. Maybe I should speed that up.

By: Jake

Jake — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 06:07:35 +0000

Even worse, if a non-dealer sells more than one handgun to the same person in a five day period, not only is there another additional form to report that “multiple transfer” to the AG, but they also have to copy that form to “the appropriate State law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction in which the transfer occurs.” (section (e)(5)(B)(ii))

So, the FFL has to fill out the background check paperwork, a 4473, the gun show transfer form, and a multiple transfer form. And all of this on top of the paperwork they have to fill out just to be able to participate in the show in the first place.

If you can’t ban gun shows, kill ‘em by burying them in paperwork.

By: Jake

Jake — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:03:32 +0000

Looks like the Anti’s first post-election salvo.

This needs to be defeated completely and utterly. No “compromise” amendments, no weakening the bill, no nothing. Complete and total annihilation of this bill is the only acceptable strategy, and the only acceptable outcome.

The NRA needs to come out swinging for this, and do so early.