I did the test on presidentmatch.com out of interest (I’m not eligible to vote in the US presidential election) and, in a list of Bush’s opinions on different issues, came upon a few that I flat out don’t understand.
Safety Devices on All New Guns: Bush “strongly opposes”. I assume the “safety devices” aren’t the simple safety catch that, as far as I know, is already present on all guns, because why would anyone oppose that? What are these safety devices, and why does Bush oppose them?
Background Checks on Gun Show Purchases: Bush “somewhat opposes”. I was under the impression that background checks are mandatory before purchasing guns, isn’t that true? Are gun shows an exception? Anyway, why does Bush oppose these background checks?
Require Safety Course, License Before Gun Purchase: Bush “strongly opposes”. I’m sure a license is required before buying a gun. Right? The safety course may be a new thing, but a license is needed, right? Why does Bush oppose this?
I’m not sure what is means, either. My best guess is that it includes external trigger locks, “smart” sensors, and/or chamber indicators.
A background check is mandatory when purchasing from a dealer/FFL holder. A background check is not required for private sales.
It depends on state law. I’m in Ohio, where we do not need a special “license” to purchase a gun. (Though a FFL holder will ask for I.D., such as a driver’s license or state I.D.) Furthermore, guns are not registered in Ohio.
If you go to a gun show and purchase a firearm from a dealer/FFL-holder, then you are required to undergo a criminal background check via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). If you go to a gun show and purchase a firearm from a private seller, then you are not required (under federal law) to undergo a criminal background check. What is actually required during a private sale depends on the state. I believe nothing is required in most states; you simply exchange cash for gun(s). (Or trade.)
Some people call this the “gun show loophole.” They claim, “You can go to a gun show and purchase a gun without a background check!” But as you can see, this is only partially true; the only time you might not have to undergo a background check at a gun show is when you’re doing a private transaction. Dealer/FFL-holder transactions always require the NICS background check.
Those who propose doing away with the so-called “gun show loophole” want all firearm buyers at a gun show to undergo a NICS check, even when a private seller is involved. Depending on how such a law is written, it may apply anywhere. Want to sell your gun to your neighbor? He’ll have to undergo an NICS check. Want to give your son a gun? He’ll have to undergo an NICS check…
OK, I get that bit. What is the basis for Bush’s opposition to the background check in a private transaction? I’m really, really not trying to start a debate (I find I write that phrase in General Questions more and more often these days), I just want to hear the argument.
My opposition to it is that it’s a cumbersome process, necessarily costs money (the FFL holder conducting the transfer would charge a fee), and yields little discernable benefit.
My general philosophy on firearms is that lawabiding people should be left alone. Criminals should be locked up. And this is a law that punishes only the lawabiding.
Criminally held firearms are already traded outside of legal strictures, in a black market. This law does nothing to disrupt that trade. It only interferes with the honest transfer of firearms between honest people, the very thing we don’t need to worry about.
I am assuming that Bush has the same problem with safety laws that most opponents do. The laws are trying to legislate technology that does not yet exist. The problem is not trigger locks. The laws i’ve heard about are trying to make it manditory to have safety sensors which make it impossible for anyone other than the owner to use them. I have yet to see a reliable system outside of science fiction. If it doesn’t work right then someone who needs to use the weapon for self defense might be holding a lump of useless metal. How about if a family member needs to pick it up and use it? The criminal trying to kill you probably isn’t following the law. If you want to take it to GD I’m sure someone can come up with the statistics for self defense vs accidental discharge. Here I’m just stating what the argument is.
There have been a number of proposals for so-called “smart guns” that can only be fired by an authorized person. Generally, this takes the form of a magnetized ring which the user wears. A sensor in the gun detects the ring, and unlocks the mechanism. If the gun is stolen, it couldn’t be used. In an altercation, a police officer’s gun is wrested away from him, it can’t be turned against him (or her).
There are several objections: First, reliability: Guns are currently pretty rugged mechanical devices which undergo significant g-forces during firing. Sensitive electronic devices do not do well in this environment, and would be prone to failure. The battery would have to be changed regularly, etc. The fear is that, at the worst possible moment, the legitimate operator of the gun would be unable to use it, with potentially fatal consequences.
Second, false security: Removing the locking mechanism from a stolen gun would take moments for a competent craftman.
The gun owner’s view of “smart gun” technology is not unlike the computer user’s view of copy protection: it impedes only incompetent crooks and legitimate users.
In a nutshell, Licensing = Registration. In most states, there is no license requirement to purchase a firearm. If you have the money and you pass the NICS, you can walk out the door with your purchase. Licensing, as a form of registration, has not shown to be a deterrent to criminals (see District of Columbia) and is a privacy issue.
Actually, many handguns don’t have safety catches, if by that you mean a little lever or button that must be manually flipped or pushed before the gun can be fired by pulling the trigger. Glock semi-automatic pistols (which are very popular with police departments) don’t have them; most revolvers don’t have them either. (For a modern revolver, you can usually either manually pull back the hammer before firing, or not. If the hammer isn’t pulled back, the gun can still be fired by pulling the trigger, but it takes more pressure on the trigger than if the hammer has been thumbed back first.)