Omar M. Campbell: Letter to the governor

Advertisement

I am a life-long gun owner, hunter, target shooter and collector of early Western firearms. Current legislation proposed at both the state and federal levels has me very worried.

I am not too concerned about closing the gun show “loophole” and banning high-capacity clips — especially drum magazines.

However, the proposal to require background checks on individuals trading, buying, selling or gifting guns to one another would be an atrocious infringement of the rights of us law-abiding citizens. It would also serve to eventually ID gun owners by building a database (de facto registration?).

I respectfully ask you to veto background checks for individual gun exchanges and all the other crack-pot proposals being debated in the Legislature.

Yours for sane gun laws,

Omar. M. Campbell

Steamboat Springs

Comments

Robert Dippold 1 year, 10 months ago

Omar, I'm a gun owner also for hunting purposes. What is your rationale for believing that background checks are legitimate for a company selling a gun to an individual but not for an individual selling it to another individual?

Thanks, Bob

1

Scott Wedel 1 year, 10 months ago

And the crime statistics show that the real problem is less than 2% of gun shops that freely sell guns to people that then resell to criminals.

I have no idea why any one would want to preserve the right of criminals and the mentally ill to buy used guns. Well, the gun manufacturers like it because it helps them sell more guns.

2

Marian Marti 1 year, 10 months ago

I was at the gun show in Denver about two weeks ago and while there purchased a gun. I was required to do a background check by the seller who had a booth at the show. When I got back to Steamboat and decided to have the gun shipped up here instead of going down there to pick it up, I had to do another background check. Am surprised that folks think that gun shows don't do background checks.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 10 months ago

I'm sure some people think there are no background checks at gun shows because of the phrase, but the "gun show loophole" is not refering to buying from a dealer at a gun show, Marian.

That phrase refers to private citizens who can show up at a gun show with a gun that they own, walk around with a "for sale" sign on the gun, have someone else who they know nothing about approach them, pay them for the gun and walk away with the gun without doing any background check whatsoever.

The same thing can be done by two parties on the firing range or wherever. You, as an individual, can sell your gun to anyone, anywhere any time with no paperwork and no questions asked.

Also, Scott, I do not think the "manufacturers like it because it helps them sell more guns..."

First, Obama is already helping them sell more guns than they can manufacture. Second, I don't think they like the exposure and black-eye of those kinds of transactions. They know it isn't good for their image.

0

David Walton 1 year, 10 months ago

Funny how we have a right to bear arms as American citizens (for use in lawful ways) yet you have to get a background check to get one? What part of "right" is being confused? I don't see anything in the second amendment that says, right to bear arms for everyone....except those with DUIs or other criminal backgrounds. In 1934 they had their first crack at gun control and a tax of $200 for each gun sale was imposed. 1938 any gun dealers who sold a gun had to keep the name and address of the buyer. After president Kennedy's assassination, the government then decided in 1968 to include convicted felons, drug users, and mentally incompetent to the list of people not allowed to own guns.......stripping them of their rights, understandably but where is the line drawn? What crimes should make you ineligible? Violent crimes or mental illness only? Or failure to pay a traffic ticket? How far can they go? It's cliche but people kill people not guns.........I would fight to keep my rights, it's been done before.....the government is too large and controlling and frankly i am getting tired of regulations, restrictions, and taxes.......I thought we were still the Wild West........apparently the horses and cowboy hats are a facade and don't actually mean anything anymore and are merely a symbol or slogan, 100 years of steamboat and 100 years of conforming to government.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 10 months ago

The rail-heads were built on land given by the gubbamint? Really??? Where did the gubbamint obtain the land, Ryan??

But then you say the "indians land was being given away..."

So which is it ?????

Was it gubbamint land that gubbamint gave away to the railroads or was it Indian land that gubbamint STOLE and gave to the railroads?

I'm sure the distinction is small in small minds but to some of us it's what distinguishes benevolence from theft. So which is it Ryan???

The same thing happens today and the Ryans of the world still see no conflict. Gubbamint still steals from one and gives to another and the Ryans of the world still paint the same rosy picture of plunder.

0

John St Pierre 1 year, 10 months ago

Actually it was that crazy "liberal" Thomas Jefferson who according to many was doing an "unconstitutional act" purchased most of Colorado along with most of what is now the central section of the United States in what is called the "Louisiana Purchase". The Government has been in Colorado's history since its inception

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 10 months ago

Our part of Colorado was not part of the Louisiana Purchase which at most included the Mississippi drainage.

Nor did the Louisiana Purchase transfer all property to the USA. It was the right to govern the region. Property owners in New Orleans did not have their property seized and given to the USA government. Nor did it end claims of Indian lands.

As for the Second Amendment, Supreme Court has said that it does convey a right for citizens to own guns so a city cannot simply ban all gun ownership. But Supreme Court has also ruled that gun ownership can be tightly regulated. Certain types of guns can be banned. People with criminal records and other people such as mentally ill can be banned from owning guns.

It is pretty clear that the gun manufacturers like that guns can be privately sold without background checks. Studies have tracked guns used in crimes back to point of purchase. The studies have shown that a small portion (2%) of gun dealers sell most of the guns used in street crimes. The studies have also shown that it is small number of people buying guns from these dealers whom then resell to criminals. The gun manufacturers have fought attempts to eliminate these sales.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 10 months ago

Your premise, Ryan, is that gubbamint is a grand 'ole thing and that it has "given" all of us stuff so anyone that criticizes gubbamint is hypocrite.

There are many fools who think money, property and "stimulus" originate from gubbamint. Gubbamint, in fact can not "give" anything until it first TAKES something from someone else. To make such a claim shows an inablilty to "follow the money" all the way back to those who truly create wealth... And I'll give you a hint IT AINT GUBBAMINT, Ryan

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.