Neal Boortz has a different take on this:
Here is some of the latest in the liberal charge to curb Second Amendment rights. First we have this from the White House.
The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.
A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.
How does Obama plan to accomplish this? By working with companies like Wal-Mart to appeal to their possible business gains from closing the fictitious “gun show loophole.” I’ve been through this charade before, but let me remind you of why I call this gun show loophole fictitious. From Nealz Nuze December 20, 2012:
Obama says he will introduce legislation to close “The Gun Show Loophole.” There IS NO gun show loophole. The federal laws pertaining to purchasing a firearm at a gun show are exactly the same at a gun show as they are anywhere else in this country. When a private individual sells a firearm to another private individual there is no requirement for a background check. When a licensed firearms dealer sells a gun to an individual a background check must be performed before the weapon is transferred. When a private individual at a gun show sells a firearm to another private individual there is no requirement for a background check. When a licensed firearms dealer at a gun show sells a gun to an individual a background check must be performed before the weapon is transferred. The operation of law is EXACTLY the same at a gun show as it is anywhere else. Therefore, as I said, there is no “gun show loophole.”
The true purpose behind this “close the gun show loophole” idea is to make the sale and transfer of firearms between individuals impossible by requiring a private individual to conduct a background check before selling a privately owned gun to another individual. Private individuals do not have the legal authority to access the information necessary to perform the background check. This would mean that Americans could only obtain a firearm through a federally licensed firearms dealer.
Now are you starting to understand how Obama will try to appeal to big businesses to “close” this loophole? If closing the loophole essentially makes the sale of firearms between individuals impossible, more sales will be forced to go through … the very companies that Obama is appealing to! What’s more … when all gun sales between individuals have to involve a background check, the government will have a record of all of these sales. What does this mean? It means the next step – gun registration – will be that much easier. After registration, where do we go? One word. Confiscation.
Then we have a Democrat State Representative in Connecticut who wants to make public the names and addresses of all handgun permit holders in the state. This representative, Stephen Dargen, says that if people know how many guns are spread across communities, they’ll be safer.
I think I have a better idea, though it’s not original with me. (Not much is). If you really want to let the people know which neighbors are more likely to be dangerous, and which can be trusted, let’s try this! Print the names and addresses of everybody in the state who has been convicted of a violent crime and is now out on parole or has finished their sentence. From which group do you think we might find our most dangerous neighbors? People who own a gun and have a concealed weapons permit? Or people who have already committed and have been convicted of committing a violent crime, and are now out on parole living free in your local community?
The answer is obvious --- but the agenda for these newspapers is not to identify dangerous people in the community – it is to demonize and present as dangerous people who are simply exercising their Second Amendment rights; people who have never committed a violent crime in their lives, and who are very strongly unlikely to do so.
I recognize how fragile things are for the people of Connecticut in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, but publishing these names does absolutely nothing to solve the problem other than make this Democrat and his fellow liberals feel better … and serve as a database for criminals to know which houses are armed and which are not.