JohnRich 4 #201 December 5, 2008 QuoteBecause "gun show loophole for unlicensed dealers" is easier to sell to the masses, just like "assault weapon ban" sounds better than "sport utility gun ban". Any closure of the "gun show loophole" will be immediately followed by whining and screaming about the "private sales loophole", and closing that "loophole" will be used as justification for retroactive registration of all firearms. You guys both get A+'s on the gun-control quiz. Thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #202 December 5, 2008 Quote Quote Because "gun show loophole for unlicensed dealers" is easier to sell to the masses, just like "assault weapon ban" sounds better than "sport utility gun ban". Any closure of the "gun show loophole" will be immediately followed by whining and screaming about the "private sales loophole", and closing that "loophole" will be used as justification for retroactive registration of all firearms. You guys both get A+'s on the gun-control quiz. Thank you. It was a really tough quiz and required exhausting mental execise to pass "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #203 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuote Prove your cite. Show me where Heller is about confiscation. Is there an echo in here? I've already explained, and you have been unable to rebut. No more of your bullshit word games, professor. You inferred that Heller was about confiscation - PROVE your cite. SHOW me where in the decision it says that.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #204 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe "loophole" is that the federal law has an exception for face to face transfer that is not present in the (more restrictive) law of California (and perhaps some other states?). If I purchase a firearm from some other private part in most states (at a gun show or not), I am not required to file any paperwork with the government. So why do they call it a "gun show loophole" when it would be more correct to call it a "private sale loophole"? The issue is not that it is for "gun shows" or "private sales". The issue is the characterization of an intentionally specific part of the law (the exemption from reporting for private face to face sales) as a "loophole." A loophole is something that the drafters of the law had not intended. the drafters of this law clearly _did_ intend for private, face to face transfers to be exempted from the reporting requirements.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,028 #205 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI realize I'm going way out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that Suzette Kelo thought she had a constitutional right to own her home, too, before she learned otherwise. Which amendment would that be? The Ninth. OK. Unfortunately the SC doesn't seem to invoke it very often.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,028 #206 December 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Prove your cite. Show me where Heller is about confiscation. Is there an echo in here? I've already explained, and you have been unable to rebut. No more of your bullshit word games, professor. You inferred that Heller was about confiscation - PROVE your cite. SHOW me where in the decision it says that. Incorrect. It's about right of ownership, which is irreconcilable with confiscation.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
