She goes on and on about how the 'gun show loophole' (ie private sales) must be closed to stop criminals from obtaining guns. The only solution offered up by the BC is to force all sales to go through FFL dealers. Dealers who the BC also supports litigating/legislating out of existence using 3rd party lawsuits, zoning and licensing restrictions.
IOW, no FFL dealers....No legal transfers of firearms.
When asked for her opinion on a different method, opening up NICS to non-licensees (even though my similar question suffered 'reasoned discourse'), she replied:
This is not a matter of what I want or don't want. I assume there is a good reason why only those who are properly licensed have access to a sensitive data base. As of now, that is the law.Interesting. So she just goes along w/ the pack? That is the law? Why does she want to expand it if it isn't a matter of what she wants?
On another note, "there is a good reason why only those who are properly licensed have access to a sensitive data base" is pretty close to the same argument our side uses to keep trace data restricted to only authorities conducting cases and not fishing expeditions by gun control groups and researchers.
Just more evidence that gun control has nothing to do w/ reducing crime and everything to do w/ control.