search
top

Self-Policing Needed, But Not This Kind

A Reno gun show promoter has agreed to require background checks for all guns sales, under pressure from the Mayor of New York City. I believe promoters need to do a lot more self-policing where pretty clearly there are vendors who are dealing without a license. But some guy showing up to sell his SMLE is not really a concern. Kick out the people who are breaking the law. Leave everyone else alone.

Caving into Bloomberg isn’t the answer. That just guarantees he’ll continue with this.

11 Responses to “Self-Policing Needed, But Not This Kind”

  1. Freiheit says:

    This is bullshit.

    1. Its caving to MAIG
    2. Its a moneymaking scam, you can bet the show operator is going to offer NICS checks for $20-40 each. Plus $15 admission. Plus $10 to park. Plus booth fees etc. I’m fine with folks making an honest buck, but squeezing me dry is not going to win you a repeat visit.

  2. mike says:

    What the promoter SHOULD do is just not let unlicensed dealers set up tables. I have zero pity for unlicensed dealers and really wish the ATF would throw charges at some of them. But then Bloomy wouldn’t be able to make his little movies.

    Some guy selling part of his collection, fine. Some guy selling different guns every weekend, NOT fine. This is where I think the ATF could do some better policing. But I’m afraid that if ATF did that, they’d also start charging honest guys just parting out their personal collections. And stomp more kittens.

  3. Miguel says:

    Somebody should stand outside this promoter’s next gun show with a big sign that says:

    THIS GUN SHOW IS APPROVED BY THE BRADY CAMPAIGN, MAYOR BLOOMBERG AND THE COALITION OF MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS.

    I suspect that attendance to the show would be somewhat lacking.

  4. andy says:

    What you will start seeing at gun shows is everything but guns for sale. I’m always a bit more than cautious about buying from an unknown non-FFL seller. Buying from a friend, not an issue.

  5. chris says:

    Why would anyone from Nevada pay attention to a N.Y. mayor.
    I agree with Freiheit- there has to be cash for the promoter involved.

  6. dusty says:

    I’d like to see Arizona issue an arrest warrant for Bloomberg.
    If it is a crime to point out flaws in airport security, because bad guys might take advantage, certainly Bloomberg is criminally at fault for pointing out flaws that bad guys can use to buy guns.

    I am always hearing that DAs can get an indictment on a baloney sandwich. Time for somebody to step up and indict Mayor Baloney.

    Just suppose Arizona sent some undercover agents to NYC, and bribed some subway cop to sell his gun and report it as lost/stolen. What do you suppose Bloomberg’s response would be?

  7. emdfl says:

    Mi.e – Would you mind explaining what an “unlicensed dealer” is?
    I’d like a real explaination as opposed to your “feelings” explaination, thanks.
    .

  8. mike says:

    From my original comment:

    “Some guy selling part of his collection, fine. Some guy selling different guns every weekend, NOT fine.”

    I don’t know where you’re going with the “feelings” remark. Perhaps you could explain that, then I might have a better idea where your confusion lies.

  9. johnnysquire says:

    Why not this kind of self-policing? If you don’t like shows that do 100% background checks, don’t go. A market where there are no-check shows on one hand, and 100%-check shows on the other is fine. It might be good for the no-check guys, or it might run them out of business – let the market decide.

    It’s certainly better than having the government do the policing – they turn innocent mistakes into jail time, where promoter self-policing mistakes get handled as a private dispute.

  10. mike says:

    johhnysquire, I’m not sure that turning a blind eye to people committing felonies at gun shows (engaging in the business of selling firearms without an FFL) is the best approach. Although it would certainly help Bloomberg close that pesky loophole he’s always talking about.

  11. johnnysquire says:

    mike – I’m not suggesting turning a blind eye – we already have laws that require some sellers to run checks.

    By “no-check” I only meant that the promoter wouldn’t require checks, not that the government wouldn’t require them.

    I guess there’s also a market for no-dealers-allowed shows, but that wasn’t what I meant.

top