Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama pushing "under-the-radar" gun control schemes

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by VA Dutch View Post
    ...with a simple national data base of prohibited people - those who are forbidden to own, carry or otherwise possess firearms. Enforce the laws we already have and focus on CRIMINALS - not the rest of us who are not the problem in the first place.
    As I understand it, this isn't about setting up a national data base on gunowners, it's about maintaining a current database (NICS) on persons legally prohibited from owning guns. If states don't meet their obligation to provide such information, the database is useless. States are provided with federal funding in part, to properly maintain and distribute relevant criminal/psychiatric information. If they aren't sharing it (as required by law), they should be held accountable.
    "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by pulicords View Post
      Federal and state law is quite clear on both who is prohibited from owning firearms and how that data is supposed to be collected, maintained and distributed to those required to access it. This isn't a federal intrusion on states' rights, it's a necessity for dealing with an interstate issue. There's absolutely no reason for one state to conceal the identity of convicted felons (and others prohibited from owning firearms) from gun sellers in other states. Arguing against such reciprocity is akin to denying the importance of maintaining a national data base on arrests/convictions/fingerprints and other criminal history details found in NCIC.
      My point was to make an actual law. Don't merely withhold funding in order to gain compliance of something that isn't codified.

      As a complete sidebar, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the Lautenberg Amendment which removes the 2nd Amendment rights of a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime. While that law is clear, I don't agree with it.

      Originally posted by pulicords View Post
      Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. While it may be a "win" (your words) for the antis to allow non-FFL holders the ability to access NICS, it most certainly is a "lose" for pro-2nd Amendment people to oppose such a policy. Instant checks could easily be accomplished without registration requirements and there's no excuse for responsible gunowners not to avail themselves with the technology. People that are prohibited by federal (and state) law from owning guns shouldn't be allowed to circumvent those prohibitions because private party sellers don't want to go through the trouble of making a toll-free telephone call. We (responsible gunowners) look like paranoid idiots when we oppose such a simple solution to an obvious problem.
      It increases the size and scope of the federal government which I am against. Responsible gunowners don't look like "paranoid idiots" for being against a national check system. They look like they prefer to exercise their rights without government intrusion. The checks could be done without registering the guns, but records will be maintained as to who initiated the check and the name of the person they were checking.

      BTW - did you know you can buy a car without having a valid license?
      NRA Life Member

      The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

      Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

      Comment


      • #18
        If someone is convicted of a felony such as ADW, robbery or burglary that is charged as a misdemeanor (as happens in California), I would support barring him from possessing a firearm.
        Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
        Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sgt. Slaughter View Post
          My point was to make an actual law. Don't merely withhold funding in order to gain compliance of something that isn't codified.

          As a complete sidebar, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the Lautenberg Amendment which removes the 2nd Amendment rights of a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime. While that law is clear, I don't agree with it.

          BTW - did you know you can buy a car without having a valid license?
          The same laws that set up NICS provide for the system's funding and describe what type of information has to be provided by each of the states (re: prohibited persons). While you and I agree about parts of the Lautenberg Amendment, I'm not completely opposed to all of it. Generally, I don't agree that those convicted of misdemeanor offenses should be denied their 2nd Amendment rights. An exception (IMHO) are those convicted of certain crimes (ie: assault, battery, domestic violence, etc...) that indicate a propensity towards violence. If one commits acts such as these, he/she should know at the time of sentencing that the right to own firearms will be taken away from them.

          What I strongly disagree with in Lautenberg, is how's it's been applied retroactively. Many people plea out to a misdemeanor offenses, based on the belief that the only consequence is a minor criminal conviction record. After terms of probation are completed, the case is over and done with. Prior to Lautenberg, this held true (as I'm sure you know) even in instances of assault, battery, DV and other alleged violations that didn't result in firearms ownership prohibitions as a result of the conviction. People were assured by the courts (and their lawyers) that pleading out on these offenses wouldn't result in penalties beyond attending things like "anger management" classes or paying a small fine. Years or even decades later, these same defendants were penalized anew by the passage of Lautenberg.

          I firmly believe applying Lautenberg penalties to cases that were dispo'd prior to the Federal legislation's passage, is in violation of the 5th Amendment prohibition against "ex-post facto" laws. Telling those facing such misdemeanor convictions now that they'll lose their right to possess firearms is reasonable. Telling those who were convicted prior to the law's passage that they're being punished with sanctions that weren't in effect at the time of their conviction is wrong and (IMHO) unconstitutional.

          BTW: Yes, I did know anyone (even a child) can buy a car without having a license. Driving it on a public highway though, is still a crime.
          Last edited by pulicords; 05-29-2011, 02:17 PM.
          "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by pulicords View Post
            BTW: Yes, I did know anyone (even a child) can buy a car without having a license. Driving it on a public highway though, is still a crime.
            Bingo. The purchase isn't illegal, it's only the proper & legal use of the item that is and should be regulated. Kinda...like...firearms.
            NRA Life Member

            The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

            Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sgt. Slaughter View Post
              Bingo. The purchase isn't illegal, it's only the proper & legal use of the item that is and should be regulated. Kinda...like...firearms.
              Please tell me you don't believe a six year old child should be able to buy firearms and suitable ammunition without the knowledge and approval of his/her parents! Should those convicted of felonies, under the jurisdiction of a domestic violence protection order, or having been committed to a mental institution also have an unrestricted right to purchase and possess firearms? What about illegal aliens, those out on bail and awaiting trial for felony offenses?

              The vast majority of U.S. citizens would never find themselves in any of the above situations, except perhaps being underage. While a sizable percentage of "gun control" measures are unjustifiable, the above restrictions sure seem to make sense and certainly are considered to be constitutional by the courts that reviewed them.
              "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by pulicords View Post
                Please tell me you don't believe a six year old child should be able to buy firearms and suitable ammunition without the knowledge and approval of his/her parents! Of course not. I believe I used the word "proper." Should those convicted of felonies, under the jurisdiction of a domestic violence protection order, In AZ, domestic violence applies to current and past roommates, plus they're relatively easy to obtain with little or no due process for the person subject to the order, so I'll vote 'no' on that one. or having been committed to a mental institution also have an unrestricted right to purchase and possess firearms? Arizona requires proof of a danger to himself or others by a court and even those can, upon judicial review, have their right to a firearm restored. What about illegal aliens nope those out on bail and awaiting trial for felony offenses? Innocent until proven guilty, sir.

                The vast majority of U.S. citizens would never find themselves in any of the above situations, except perhaps being underage. While a sizable percentage of "gun control" measures are unjustifiable, the above restrictions sure seem to make sense and certainly are considered to be constitutional by the courts that reviewed them.
                NRA Life Member

                The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

                Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

                Comment


                • #23
                  Just to clarify: When a judge issues a protective order (upon a showing of cause) you don't believe he has the right to restrain persons from purchasing/possessing firearms? What about when the court reviews and finds that a person is (due to mental defect) a danger to himself or others? How can you accept a courts findings in one case, but not in the other as legitimate?

                  Illegal aliens don't have the right to purchase firearms, but those people out on bail and awaiting trial for felony violations do? Using this kind of logic, someone arrested as an illegal alien should have the right to buy a gun, until he's convicted of being an illegal alien! (BTW: You really need to read up on what the "presumption of innocence" really means- in court. )
                  Last edited by pulicords; 05-29-2011, 03:10 PM.
                  "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The law allows the judge to do so, but I don't agree with it. If you read my previous statement regarding Lautenberg, there's no deviation there.

                    Here are our categories for prohibited possessors which I happen to like (with the exception of the DV/Lautenberg-related things I already stated):
                    7. "Prohibited possessor" means any person:
                    (a) Who has been found to constitute a danger to himself or to others or to be persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled pursuant to court order under section 36-540, and whose right to possess a firearm has not been restored pursuant to section 13-925.
                    (b) Who has been convicted within or without this state of a felony or who has been adjudicated delinquent for a felony and whose civil right to possess or carry a gun or firearm has not been restored.
                    (c) Who is at the time of possession serving a term of imprisonment in any correctional or detention facility.
                    (d) Who is at the time of possession serving a term of probation pursuant to a conviction for a domestic violence offense as defined in section 13-3601 or a felony offense, parole, community supervision, work furlough, home arrest or release on any other basis or who is serving a term of probation or parole pursuant to the interstate compact under title 31, chapter 3, article 4.
                    (e) Who is an undocumented alien or a nonimmigrant alien traveling with or without documentation in this state for business or pleasure or who is studying in this state and who maintains a foreign residence abroad. This subdivision does not apply to:
                    (i) Nonimmigrant aliens who possess a valid hunting license or permit that is lawfully issued by a state in the United States.
                    (ii) Nonimmigrant aliens who enter the United States to participate in a competitive target shooting event or to display firearms at a sports or hunting trade show that is sponsored by a national, state or local firearms trade organization devoted to the competitive use or other sporting use of firearms.
                    (iii) Certain diplomats.
                    (iv) Officials of foreign governments or distinguished foreign visitors who are designated by the United States department of state.
                    (v) Persons who have received a waiver from the United States attorney general.
                    NRA Life Member

                    The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

                    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      STOP CUTTING MONEY TO STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS!!!!!!!!!! All that is doing is forcing them to lay off cops...
                      Yes I think they should stop giving money to state and local governments because nowhere in the constitution is that duty to fund state and local governments granted. I guess I am an extremist.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JasperST View Post
                        None of that would have helped prevent the Arizona massacre but you have to blame something when you believe that people aren't fully responsible for themselves.
                        Truth.
                        Applied USSS 1811 0809, TEA 1009, Initial 1109, BQA'd 1209

                        Applied Federal Agency 0083 0310, Phone 1010

                        Comment

                        MR300x250 Tablet

                        Collapse

                        What's Going On

                        Collapse

                        There are currently 4467 users online. 317 members and 4150 guests.

                        Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                        Welcome Ad

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X