Jill at Liberty’s Logic posted Monday emphasizing Tom Barrett’s reasonable positions on guns and gun control, as evidenced by America’s 1st Freedom, a publication from the National Rifle Association.
That’s how I interpreted the post, though the author was going for a “Barrett-hates-the-second-amendment-and-wants-your-guns” characterization of the candidate for Governor. How so?
Barrett supports a law to;
Require felons to stay 1,000 feet from gun stores, shooting ranges and gun shows, and … declare “straw buying” of guns to be a felony and failure to report stolen guns a crime.
Why the law? I would assume after one gun store being traced as the supplier (through straw buys) of all guns used to wound Milwaukee police officers in the last two years, Barrett wanted to prevent future shootings. Not so, according to the NRA;
“Barrett is exploiting the two fatal shootings of Milwaukee law enforcement officers … to push his own anti-gun agenda.”
Barrett is active in Mayors Against Illegal Guns a group with a mission of “preventing criminals from illegally obtaining guns and using them” and “support[ing] the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own guns.”
With the statement:
“Even though Barrett himself was attacked and beaten with a metal pipe last August, which he is still recovering from, he does not support concealed carry in Wisconsin.”
The author implies Barrett’s reaction as a victim should be to arm himself.
Barrett’s continued opposition to concealed carry in light of the attack only bolsters his position. The Violence Policy Center’s recently released numbers of people killed by permit holders with legally concealed handguns reinforces the point.
Like Barrett, I fully believe in the right of private citizens to own firearms. I know laws won’t prevent every criminal that wants a gun from getting a gun. On a controversial subject Barrett strikes a reasonable balance, while the NRA takes an extreme position, putting the public in danger.
This match goes to Barrett.
in 2008 Barrett ran for reelection in Milwaukee against a socialist by the name of Andrew Shaw.
Barrett: Tough on socialism.
Prohibition of straw purchases is meant to strike directly at the epidemic of illegal guns in America. Selling guns to felons is a profitable business – when a guy goes into a store and buys 50 handguns you know he’s not buying them just because he doesn’t like to reload.
The NRA is the only obstacle that stands in the way of this reasonable law’s passage.
Barrett has a congressional history of voting for bans on guns. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1994-156
If you actually read the bill it makes clear that assault weapons (not your hunting rifle) are the subject of the ban and that there are reasonable exceptions made for dealers/collectors and certain hunting guns.
1. Gun rights is a state issue and the 2nd Amendment doesn’t necessarily apply.
2. Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution guarantees the right to keep and BEAR arms for “any lawful purpose.” Laws which conflict with that are unconstitutional, aren’t they?
3. If Martha Stewart were a Wisconsin citizen, she would be prohibited from buy a firearm? WHY?
Please provide the evidence that the NRA supports straw purchases of firearms for felons or any support from the NRA for felons handling guns. What’s the problem with straw purchases of firearms by law abiding citizens? If I, as a law abiding citizen, want to purchase a firearm for my brother, another law abiding citizen, as a birthday present, no law has been broken.
Bill, you CAN buy a gun for your brother for his birthday. Give him the money for it, accompany him when he makes the purchase and stick a big red bow on in when the dealer hands it to him. This is a REASONABLE law that prevents felons from purchasing firearms. Nobody is trying to take guns away from LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Be reasonable!