You have very good arguments against Cooch, use those instead of falling back on tired cliche`s.

“There is no legal authority for the state or the federal government to regulate the transfer of firearms between individuals **unless the recipient is a disallowed person** or the transfer crosses state lines.” (emphasis added)

How can you be certain, in a private sale, that the recipient is not a disallowed person unless you run a background check?

While there are requirements under which those who engage in the sale of firearms as a trade must adhere to, such regulation is authorized under the state constitution, and when interstate commerce applies, the federal Constitution. There is no legal authority for the state or the federal government to regulate the transfer of firearms between individuals unless the recipient is a disallowed person or the transfer crosses state lines. I’d like to restrict the private sale of automobiles to legal residents and citizens, which would have an even more significant impact on public safety, but if the government doesn’t have the authority to impose the restriction I’m just blowing smoke.

But, if gun shop owners must abide by one set of rules for the sale of firearms, why shouldn’t anyone who sells a firearm be subject to the same set of rules (whether that’s requiring filling out a BATF form and completing a background check or dropping that requirement for all sales including gun shop sales)?

By calling is personal property, you do well to cloud the argument, Greg. It makes it sound like you’re selling your car (which requires you notify the state and file change of title papers) or a boat (which, again, requires you notify the state). But it’s not quite the same, is it? Firearms, like it or not, are currently subject to regulation regarding their ownership and sale. While this remains the case, shouldn’t all firearm sales be subject to the same requirements?

From a more personal perspective, wouldn’t you like to be assured that the person you are selling your gun to isn’t an off-balanced psychopath? Wouldn’t you want to be sure you aren’t selling a weapon to someone with a history of violence?

I won’t make any disengenuous leaps between Cho’s purchasing of firearms and any lack of restrictions on the transfer of a gun from one private party to another. That just seems like an opportunistic jump. I just find it interesting that we hold business owners (who are just trying to engage in the free market) to a different standard than we hold individuals when it comes to the sales of firearms. Do I want to see an undue burden on the individual? No. Do I want to see gun show sales banned? No. What I do want to see is the same standard and rules applied to any firearm sale. Maybe that means whoever runs the gun show provides the resources for filling out the BATF form and completing the NCIS check. Maybe that is a role for the State Police. Maybe there are other creative, less instusive methods out there that are just waiting for a creative mind to wrap around.

It’s also interesting to note that Governor Kaine issued Executive Order #50 today (with advice and consent from AG McDonnell) that makes reporting of anyone who is ordered to undergo involuntary mental health treatment (inpatient or outpatient) a requirement. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070430/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_4;_ylt=AqDlFKIpykvmGYG_KfdyMGRH2ocA)

Did Senator Reynolds receive $15,900 from officials of the Safa Group? Cuccinelli did.

Did Reynolds endorse Gill? Cuccinelli did.

Cuccinelli is dangerous, because he is saying that it is okay to have been the chief lobbyist (Gill) for or on behalf of a convicted terrorist (Abdurahman Alamoudi), you can still go to Richmond.

To see why Cuccinelli’s acceptance of $15,900 from the Safa Group is so dangerous, google “Safa Group” and “Isle of Man.”

Cuccinelli is a matador who has turned his back on the bull, the anti-terrorist majority of people, to please the crowd of hacks, corrupt pols, sharia law advocates, whatever at the Faisal Gill kickoff. We will see if this works out for him.

BUT;

because SB 807 failed by one vote in 2005…Roscoe Reynolds’ vote.

I wonder if “Goodbye Ken” will join me in helping to defeat Senator Reynolds now.

The “gun show loophole”, as it is somewhat foolishly called, preserves the right of those not regularly engaged in trading firearms — ordinary gun owners — to trade their personal property with others. That’s really what’s going on here. Require anyone selling their own property to register with the BATF in order to do so, and we invite major problems.

One might consider this rare circumstance of private individuals selling their property at a gun show to pose somewhat of a threat. In reality, there’s no demonstration that it is. Before engaging on a quest to close this “loophole” of allowing citizens to freely trade their goods as protected under the constitution, one might want to establish concretely whether there actually is a problem in need of solving, or whether this is just an inconvenient citizens right that just sticks in the craw of liberals who can’t fathom the idea of anyone purchasing a firearm no matter what the source.

At any rate, Cuccinelli has endangered no one with his vote on this bill, and merely sided with the same political philosophy that the founders of our nation adhered to. He should be congratulated on this, not criticized.

He is representing a predominantly Democratic district. Cuccinelli is not candid with the Democratic constituents who he represents about what his true views are.

“”"SB 807 (in the 2005 session) had absolutely nothing at all to do with the manner in which the crazed lunatic who committed this outrage obtained his firearms, and even had Cho tried to obtain a firearm at a gun show under the regulations that SB 807 imposed, he would not have been denied.”"”

True, but not the point I was making. Cuccinelli and Kaine agree that a background check should include any court finding that the would-be purchaser is mentally incompetent. In fact, I think we all agree about that.

Cuccinelli on WTOP this weekend certainly seemed to support the idea that a person with Cho’s background of mental incompetence should not be purchasing a gun. The problem is that no matter how inclusive background checks become, those who purchase firearms at gun shows from private sellers are not subject to background checks.

Cho was devious. Had he been denied a firearm because of a background check he could and perhaps would have gone to a gun show and purchased weapons from a private seller. The Columbine killers bought their guns through an intermediary at a gun show precisely because of the lack of controls over such purchases.

At this point the goal ought to be to prevent the mentally incompetent from purchasing guns anywhere, even at a gun show from a private seller. What Cuccinelli is proposing would not stop that from happening, because SB 807 failed by one vote in 2005…Ken Cuccinelli’s vote.

He should move to somewhere that the people agree with him on guns. I doubt they do in the district he represents.

“”"This kind of call for more gun control, as if those with evil intentions will ever be dissuaded from committing their atrocities by just one more gun law, actually harms us.”"”

In this case we already have background checks at gun shows for those who purchase their guns from dealers. All SB 807 would have done was require private sellers at gun shows to use the same system that dealers use. Am I missing something. Did SB 807 do more than I say?

“”"Cho didn’t buy a firearm at a gun show.”"”

Agreed.

“”"The firearms he did purchase were transferred to him from a licensed firearms dealer, who complied with the National Instance Check System.”"”

Agreed. The problem and half-solution that Cuccinelli proposes is that court findings of mental incompetence are not included in background check results, and they should be.

“”"Cho passed that background check,”"”

Agreed.

“”"and unless we start talking about stripping everyone who has received outpatient mental health services of their gun rights, this discussion is entirely inane.”"”

That is quite a check. Only a small percentage of persons who receive outpatient mental health services are mentally incompetent.

“”"After news coverage of her tragedy, she starts attracting stalkers, and after learning that there’s really no way for the police to provide her with round-the-clock protection for an indefinite period, she seeks to obtain effective means for her own defense.”"”

There was nothing in SB 807 that would have any impact on the single mother’s ability to get a gun, unless a court has found her to be mentally incompetent. In which case it was totally appropriate for her to lose custody of her child. A mentally incompetent person is not in a good place from which to decide if someone is stalking her, and ought not to be making the life-or-death decisions that carrying a concealed firearm involves.

Cuccinelli is fooling his predominantly Democratic constituents into thinking that he is a moderate on guns, and in fact he does not represent his constituents’ views. He is unfit for office because of the Faisal Gill matter, his district is near mine and I intent to do my small part to retire him.