I hope that nothing bad enough happens to you or anyone else to ever need to use a gun.

Some feel that CCW is an exercise of their Freedom, others feel that it is silly and takes away your freedom. Isn't it nice to be able to choose?

Another moral of the story is if the family hadn't had a car, the crook wouldn't have tried to steal it. This nonsense about having a gun in the house makes you XYZ more likely to be a victim of a gun crime is just nuts. If I live near a lake, am I more likely to die from drowning? Is marriage the #1 cause of divorce?

That's funny

The shooting is a sad thing, not sure what could be done to prevent something like this. With that said, I'm in favor of anything that improves my odds of survival. Packing might not have saved her life, but, maybe it would have.

I recently got my CCP. I don't carry, but I would like the option.

I actually got it because I was tired of the waiting period. There is no wait in WA if you have it.

the waiting period is a funny thing.

once you own a firearm you should be clear to buy your next one
with out waiting.

Thank Mrs. Brady for that.

But doesnt Mrs. Brady break the gun laws when she feels that its needed? She got busted recently for doing something firearms related. Course the liberals overlooked that.

Kinda like Rosie's bodyguards carrying weapons when she was thumping the desk on her show against weapons. Guess whats good for the fat old goose is not good for anyone else??

Edit, just found it. http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/000780.html

Yeah, I hated the waiting period here in Texas. Those phone calls could take 5 minutes!

Heh hehe heh!

I took a British guy into a Gander mountain to just show him that any sporting goods store can sell guns. Then I bought a Springfield 1911, sort of to show how easy it could be done!

I read that whole thing and the Brady bill and don't see where she broke any law. Can you point out the violation?

Straw Purchase. Question 12a on form 4473 asks if the firearm is for you.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/images/4473-1.gif

The reason behind 12a is that a background check is being run on the Purchaser (part of the Brady waiting period/Instant Check requirement). A NICS check is run on the purchaser. If the Purchase is for someone else, they have to fill out the form and have the background check, and show ID, etc.

It asks if you are the purchaser, and then defines it. She was not acquiring it on behalf of another person. She actually did purchase it. On behalf would mean that someone else gave you money to buy the firearm for them. If it is the intent to prohibit a gift it is very unclear.


And the question puzzles law enforcement.
http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregprof@listserv.ucla.edu/msg00173.html



I could not find any such discussion about gifting a firearm in the Brady bill.


So the uproar is nonsense and so is the article. If we need to clarify this, then the gov should do that.

Please try an experiment. Go to a gun shop near you and tell the clerk that the rifle you are buying is a gift for someone else. See what happens (or really, what doesn't happen).

The link I posted also makes it a very murky question. The question needs to be clarified, I believe.

I would suspect it depends on how you offer the information.
" I want to buy a gun for my son." Nope
" I want to buy a gun and see how I like it, and then give it to my son" maybe.

" I want to buy a gun and see how I like it, and then give it to my son in ten years" Yes.


But even if it was my intent to give it to him for his birthday next month, I am still the purchaser and would read that question as that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Brady

A controversy occurred after Sarah Brady recounted in her book that she had purchased a Remington .30-06 rifle with a scope and safety lock at a Lewes, Delaware, gun shop, for her son, James Scott Brady, Jr., "as a Christmas present" in 2000. According to Delaware Justice Department spokeswoman Lori Sitler, this purchase was apparently a "straw purchase". Under the gun laws, her son, as the intended recipient of the weapon, should have undergone the required background checks, although he has no criminal record.

According to a quote in the New York Times, "We hope that it's innocuous and there's been no laws violated," said James Jay Baker, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. "It's obviously interesting that Sarah would be purchasing firearms of any kind for anybody, given her championing of restrictive guns laws for everyone."

Ms. Brady was not indicted by any grand jury, state or federal, in the incident.

It is simple fact that Ms. Brady has campaigned tirelessly to make purchasing firearms more difficult and more complicated for anyone, with the ultimate goal of making it impossible to do so. Many of us found irony in the fact that she quite innocently bought a gun and, in the process of doing so, raised questions about the legality of her having done so.

It should never be illegal for anyone to buy a gun. That is a miss-guided attempt at "preventative justice" that does no more than make honest citizens trip over meaningless, ineffective rules, as Ms. Brady demonstrated. Criminals will acquire guns no matter what. Her efforts merely inconvenience honest people and have no demonstratable affect on crime. Her measures have been in place long enough now to have solid numbers to back that up.

What is needed is (and gawd I hate to use this term) "zero tolerance" towards gun crime. Use a gun in a crime, go to jail for life. The first time you do it. For life; no parole, no plea bargains, nadda. Life without parole on the very first offense. Empty our prisons of non-violent victimless crime type offenders, like drug users, and fill them back up with gun-toting criminals. Then leave the rest of us honest gun owners, including Ms. Brady's son, out of it.

excellent idea, Jeff.

+1 Jeff