Berkowitz also responds on Jack’s views on gun control which is pretty interesting:
Archpundit, that might be too strong an inference by you. The general issues above come up in part with respect to closing the gun show loophole, which allows guns to be sold without the background check that is required by gun stores. If a three day waiting period is imposed on trade shows, that would close down the trade shows, many of which only last for about two days. So, the instant background check technology allows the gun shows to exist without (1) being used as a loophole for “bad guy,” sellers and buyers of guns to avoid the background check requirement and (2) without infringing on the Second Amendment.
It’s hard to see how a 24/72 hour waiting period would infringe on the 2nd Amendment even if you see it as a personal right (something the Courts don’t do). But more troubling to me is why is it that buying at a trade show should be privileged? What is the reasoning there? Because of convenience? Already it is inconvenient for many people who live farther away from where they want to buy a gun. For long guns and rural hunters it is seldom just 24 hours before they can pick up their rifle or shotgun.
This also avoids the Illinois law that requires the federal background check, but also a check with the state police. The state check isn’t instant, though it is usually pretty fast. As I read the law, those still have to be performed by federal licensed dealers. Individual sales are allowed without background checks (even though such a system would be easy in Illinois and the $3 fee insignificant).
Gun regulations in Illinois are rather mild–tougher than most states, but it is hard to imagine that any hunter has lost a day of hunting to Illinois regulations or that anyone looking to protect themselves have been impaired by the hand gun waiting period or having to get an FOID card (which is far longer than 72 hours). If Jack thinks they are too strong, that would put him out of the mainstream with most Illinois voters—something that a guy calling his opponent at radical might want to think about.