• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

WSJ - Menino & Bloomberg on Heller

Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
5,769
Likes
3,543
Feedback: 15 / 0 / 0
The anti-gun crowd continues its effort to turn Heller into more gun control. They offer four ways that gun owners exercise freedom that they would like to stop or control. In short, they want background checks on private face-to-face transactions ("closing the gun show loophole" and some reference to "fire sales" by gun dealers going out of business); background checks on gun dealer employees; and, the ability to deny second amendment rights to anyone they don't like ("closing the terror gap"). Real patriots these two.

Some Gun Rules We Can All Agree On
By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG and THOMAS M. MENINO
The Wall Street Journal
June 30, 2008; Page A11

Finally. After decades of ideological debates over the meaning of every word and comma contained in the U.S. Constitution's one-sentence Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling that should largely settle the matter.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, while also affirming the constitutionality of reasonable restrictions aimed at preserving public safety and deterring criminals from acquiring and using firearms. Now it's time for all elected officials to start working together to enact creative new solutions to violent crime.

For years, shouting matches over the Second Amendment drowned out reasoned discussion of any middle ground. One side argued for a handgun ban, the other for repeal of an assault-weapons ban. It made for good political theater, but it prevented progress on common-sense proposals that would achieve what both sides say they want: keeping criminals from illegally purchasing and possessing guns.

Two years ago, a group of 15 mayors came together to begin reclaiming this middle ground and working to toughen enforcement of federal laws. Today, our coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns has more than 300 members from every region of the country and from both major political parties.

Mayors – often the ones in charge of police departments – recognize that the constitutionally sound middle ground is large enough for all those who have a good-faith interest in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and protecting public safety.

Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with a firearm. That's the equivalent of a Virginia Tech massacre. And like the Virginia Tech killer, most murderers purchase or possess their guns in violation of federal law. Our bipartisan coalition of mayors has identified four key reforms that would fix the federal government's primary tool for preventing illegal gun sales: the background check system.

Close the gun-show loophole. Currently, licensed gun dealers are required to run criminal background checks on all buyers, but a loophole in the law enables criminals to avoid these checks if they buy from "occasional sellers" who don't have federal licenses. These unlicensed sellers, who often operate at gun shows, shoot a hole through the background-check system that allows criminals to purchase guns. That is why the major presidential candidates have called for this gun show loophole to be closed.

End gun-dealer fire sales. If the federal government shuts down gun dealers for selling illegally, it nevertheless allows those dealers to sell off their inventory without conducting the background checks that it normally requires them to do. Imagine if a liquor store was shut down for selling to minors. Would anyone support a policy that would allow the owner to sell off all the remaining liquor without checking IDs? Of course not.

Require gun dealers to do background checks on employees. Under the current law, if a person can't buy guns – because he or she has a criminal or mental-illness record – that person cannot sell guns, either. But the law fails to require dealers to conduct background checks on their employees, even though they already have background-check machines in their stores.

Close the "terror gap." If the federal government can prevent a potentially dangerous person from getting on a plane, shouldn't it also be able to prevent that person from buying guns? Last year, the Bush administration endorsed a bill that will close the terror gap. Congress should make it law this year.

Recently, our coalition of mayors commissioned a bipartisan public opinion poll to ask Americans what they thought of these four ideas. In each case, more than 80% of Americans – including more than 80% of gun owners – stated their support. This is the vast middle ground shared by mayors across the country, and now that the Supreme Court has swept aside the old ideological debate, the only question remaining is whether Congress has the courage to join us.

Mr. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York City. Mr. Menino is the mayor of Boston. They are the founding co-chairs of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org.
 
What is everyones thoughts on this one?



Though I do hate Bloomberg and Mumbles to pieces, this one seems very reasonable and non-infringing on our rights.

And to be clear, I AM against the other 'recommendations'.

A throw away demand. Slippery slope. Give these a**h***s nothing.
 
But the law fails to require dealers to conduct background checks on their employees, even though they already have background-check machines in their stores.


WTF is a background check machine?!?
 
A throw away demand. Slippery slope. Give these a**h***s nothing.

How is it a slippery slope?

And these 'All or Nothing' thoughts and beliefs will get you nothing in the long run.

Also, I am talking ONLY of the point mentioned. If your just gonna put down 'give them nothing' dont bother responding.

Also, as the proverb paraphrased says: "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."
 
How is it a slippery slope?

And these 'All or Nothing' thoughts and beliefs will get you nothing in the long run.

No, "all or nothing" just keeps the other side from getting "all".

Every time they offer some incremental little suggestion we should oppose it; there is usually a good reason why. In this case, start with the basic concept that two free people should be able to conduct a gun trade or sale without government interference. Now, given this (which should be our fundamental position on gun sales and background checks), how is it consistent to require a gun shop employee to have a background check? Next, observe that if one accepts that a gun shop employee should be required to have a background check, then one could argue that anyone selling a gun should undergo such a check. Hence, incremental action to regulate all gun sales.

Always assume these guys are weasels and the logic just flows from there.
 
They say that the law doesn't require background checks, but I wonder how many dealers to them as a matter of local or state law or just good business practice?

Of course, background checks are more difficult to do in MA than in most other states due to the CORI law. I wonder if Menino will ask the Governor to look into changing that?

*Chirp*
 
What is everyones thoughts on this one?



Though I do hate Bloomberg and Mumbles to pieces, this one seems very reasonable and non-infringing on our rights.

And to be clear, I AM against the other 'recommendations'.

The nation's largest seller of firearms is Wal-Mart. If they have to do background checks on every employee before they can assign them to the sporting goods department, then it'd probably just be easier for them to stop selling guns altogether. Remember, it was this mayors group that got Wal-mart to agree to the record-keeping plan. Getting rid of the largest gun retailer is their major objective.
 
Lets run through a check list for generally accepted weak arguments that pander to emotion for support rather than logical facts that bear the reader the ability to form their own opinion on the subject matter.

I’ve got a fishing pole; lets snag a few red herrings:
You can play along as well, we are looking for:
  • Appeal to consequences
  • Appeal to fear
  • Appeal to flattery
  • Appeal to pity
  • Appeal to ridicule
  • Appeal to spite
  • Wishful thinking

Two years ago, a group of 15 mayors came together
15 Mayors of Large cities…how many cities do you have in your state? Massachusetts has 46. 15 out of 46 isnt a huge majority its only 36%. Lets go a bit further and say there are 50 states with 30 cities each for a sum of 1500 Mayors. 15 of those 1500 decided this is a huge issue. 15 of 1500 is 1%. Much like the representative fallacy that the actions of a small percentage of legal gun owners represent the larger so do these two assume the same mantle, however for the good. In their eyes their small percentage is speaking for the larger.

The actual numbers are 225 enrolled mayors, which using my example of 1500 cities would still be only 15%.

Mayors – often the ones in charge of police departments – recognize that the constitutionally sound middle ground is large enough for all those who have a good-faith interest in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and protecting public safety.

Mayors who appoint political appointees who deny you at the mayors ‘discretion’, mayors who have been elected year after year with a failing crime agenda, mayors who have been blaming the boogey man for far too many years? These mayors?

How about mayors who do not micromanage and allow chiefs to actually work in their communities? How about mayors who can get some funding for understaffed police departments? How about mayors like my mayor? Those mayors and the other mayors across America must be a minority like the legal gun owners and not worth speaking on nor granting attention to.

Honestly I wish some mayors would just start to push for the actual sentencing of those convicted...stop the problem at the source.

Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with a firearm. That's the equivalent of a Virginia Tech massacre. And like the Virginia Tech killer, most murderers purchase or possess their guns in violation of federal law.
Got one Jim! Looks like an Eastern Appeal to Emotion Fish.

Our bipartisan coalition of mayors has identified four key reforms that would fix the federal government's primary tool for preventing illegal gun sales: the background check system.

Close the gun-show loophole. Currently, licensed gun dealers are required to run criminal background checks on all buyers, but a loophole in the law enables criminals to avoid these checks if they buy from "occasional sellers" who don't have federal licenses.

Does this set up the process and fee system for private sale of all items? Will I require a SOT for selling a pocketknife or hunters knife? Will I require a Dealership license to sell my car privately? Do I have to be sure the person who is buying the car can drive or the person who purchased my hunting knife has an approved cutlery license as well?

End gun-dealer fire sales. If the federal government shuts down gun dealers for selling illegally, it nevertheless allows those dealers to sell off their inventory without conducting the background checks that it normally requires them to do. Imagine if a liquor store was shut down for selling to minors. Would anyone support a policy that would allow the owner to sell off all the remaining liquor without checking IDs? Of course not.

If Walmart closed tomorrow, would we enact legislation to stop the sales of lead based items flooding the community? A sale is a sale.

I cant even comment on this one, as to be honest when I have seen dealers going out of sale they either got raided and had no guns to sell, or were stupid and selling unchecked just trying to add time or fines to their federal time and fees. I may call this herring an Eastern consequentiam fish.

Require gun dealers to do background checks on employees. Under the current law, if a person can't buy guns – because he or she has a criminal or mental-illness record – that person cannot sell guns, either. But the law fails to require dealers to conduct background checks on their employees, even though they already have background-check machines in their stores.

Actually I kind of agree with this, I would hate to see my local shop or larger shop shut down because an employee in the firearms section was an undeclared felon. Since we do it for bank tellers I can see this one having merit. Even the guy who does your Propane sat for a video and signed off on it…I’m throwing this fish back; may snag it later.

Close the "terror gap." If the federal government can prevent a potentially dangerous person from getting on a plane, shouldn't it also be able to prevent that person from buying guns? Last year, the Bush administration endorsed a bill that will close the terror gap. Congress should make it law this year.

This one is like standing at upstream during Salmon mating. Grab a net, the fires ready.
So if Johnny Dangerous cant fly, surely he can drive, bus himself, train his travels or podiatry a walk there. If he is determined to get somewhere he is going to get there. Lucky for him due to the cost of time involved in getting on the plane in the first place, its cheaper and quicker for him not to fly and if Johnnys got a mean streak hes snickering at the fact that everyone else is getting screwed.
 
Reassign?

No, these socialists will require EVERY WalMart employee in the entire company to be so checked.

You see, they WANT to make it a hassle so that WalMart will think twice about selling firearms.

They WANT all gun dealers to be little guys because they are far less able to defend themselves in court.
 
That phrase pisses me off. Classic use of fear to influence a debate: Vaguely associate any subject with terrorism and it automatically causes people to form a negative opinion of it before they've heard word one from either perspective. Such douchebaggery.
 
That phrase pisses me off. Classic use of fear to influence a debate: Vaguely associate any subject with terrorism and it automatically causes people to form a negative opinion of it before they've heard word one from either perspective. Such douchebaggery.

This sounds familiar..... hmmm .... "The Patriot Act" ..... That's the one.

Associate the word patriot, or terrorist, terrorism, etc with anything, and suddenly all opposition due to constitutional violation and violation of civil rights goes.....you guessed it......right out the window.

Apparently, I didn't get that "t.p.s." report concerning the definition change of the word patriot.
 
The nation's largest seller of firearms is Wal-Mart. If they have to do background checks on every employee before they can assign them to the sporting goods department, then it'd probably just be easier for them to stop selling guns altogether. Remember, it was this mayors group that got Wal-mart to agree to the record-keeping plan. Getting rid of the largest gun retailer is their major objective.

See this:
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=39422
 
Look at me
Look at me
Driving and I won't stop
And it feels so good to be
Alive and on top
My reach is global
My tower secure
My cause is noble
My power is pure
I can hand out a million vaccinations
Or let'em all die in exasperation
Have'em all grilled leavin lacerations
Have'em all killed by assassination
I can make anybody go to prison
Just because I don't like'em and
I can do anything with no permission
I have it all under my command

The Mayor's Anthem?
 
Though I do hate Bloomberg and Mumbles to pieces, this one seems very reasonable and non-infringing on our rights.

IMO forcing dealers to do background checks is another cost/pain in the ass/flaming hoop for the dealers and we'll basically all pay for it in the end in terms of higher prices. It just smells like another page in the VPC/Brady playbook to me- insert another costly law/requirement that a dealer has to comply with to inhibit them from doing
business or drive them out of business in the process. It might not seem like much, at first, but think about the
problems such a requirement could cause.

FWIW, the NRA has been giving the antis a bone periodically for the better part of the last century or so, and it hasn't gotten us crap. Years ago, for example, because the antis were whining, the NRA pushed for NICS etc, and despite the functionality, despite the number of "prohibited persons" it blocks, etc, the antis still whine for more flaming hoops and restrictions, that in the end, result in punishing the majority of the american gun owner base, which are non-criminals. The entire US gun control system is based around the philosophy of punishing the whole arbitrarily for the actions of a relative few.


-Mike
 
The requests for these laws are just a front for banning firearms altogether. Ever wonder why the existing law that specifies a mandatory 1 year (?) in jail for an illegally possessed gun is never enforced? It's because the liberals don't believe there are "bad" people. There are no criminals, just people who made a poor choice and need a second chance.

It's the guns that are the culprit, their existence tempting such people to make bad choices. It's just like alcohol - eliminate the bars and liquor stores and alcoholics would no longer have to face the daily risk of falling off the wagon.

Liberals want to eliminate guns for your own good. [frown]
 
They say that the law doesn't require background checks, but I wonder how many dealers to them as a matter of local or state law or just good business practice?

I'm not so sure that this isn't currently done.

I recall a conversation in a Dick's Sporting Goods store . . . they were alleging that a background check had to be done on any employee before they were allowed to step behind the ammo/gun counter to work. I think that even Wal-Mart only allows certain employees to work behind the ammo counter.

Don't know if these are strictly store policies, MA requirements by law/local chief who issues the MA Ammo/Gun Dealer Licenses or BATFE.
 
They say that the law doesn't require background checks, but I wonder how many dealers to them as a matter of local or state law or just good business practice?

Whoever said that is a liar. Federal law does indeed compel FFLs to do a NICS check on every transaction they perform regardless of where it takes place. Every single firearm I have purchased from a dealer at a gun show has gone through NICS.
 
Back
Top Bottom