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

  • w8ing2hear
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MagnumForce
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sgt. Slaughter
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pulicords
    replied
    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, 02:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sgt. Slaughter
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pulicords
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sgt. Slaughter
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pulicords
    replied
    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, 01:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAL
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sgt. Slaughter
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • pulicords
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pulicords
    replied
    Quote Originally Posted by pulicords "Of all the complaints, the one I just don't understand is why anyone would oppose penalties on states for failing to enter names of persons who are prohibited from owning guns into the national data base? The NRA and most other pro-2nd Amendment organizations supported the concept of "Instant Checks" (vs waiting periods) and who here doesn't agree that those prohibited from lawfully purchasing firearms (felons, the insane, etc...) should be denied them? Why shouldn't states meet their statutory reporting requirements?"

    Sgt Slaughter: I agree with Jasper. It's just something else the federal government can/would use to withhold funds from the states.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by pulicords "Additionally, just what's wrong with allowing private citizens from having access to NICS, so they can verify private sales aren't being conducted with prohibited persons?"

    Sgt Slaughter: That would be a huge win for the anti-gun crowd. You'd have to keep paper records just like the 4473 that dealers use, so you're not running names willy nilly and someone in the fed would have to maintain that database. That means the government will then know which citizens are buying and selling guns (the ones that are abiding by the law and actually conducting the checks, anyway). The anti-gunners would use such a system as a stepping stone to the end game of national registration.

    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.
    Last edited by pulicords; 05-29-2011, 11:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAL
    replied
    Originally posted by VA Dutch View Post

    Not to fall into the "tin foil hat" category, but the biggest reservation about a 'national data base' of firearms owners is the worry about confiscation. As we have seen in other nations (and indeed in some of our own states), registration often leads to confiscation. If I am a law-abiding citizen, it is none of the government's business whether or not I choose to exercise a constitutional right. It is a RIGHT - not a privilege subject to bureaucratic or legislative fiat.

    I'd prefer the REVERSE of such a system, though, 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.
    Isn't that the system we (supposedly) have now?

    Leave a comment:


  • VA Dutch
    replied

    Our wires got crossed, Sgt. Slaughter; but you pretty much nailed what I was trying to say.

    Sic semper tyrannis!!

    ========================

    "Would the last real conservative in the room please turn out the light when you leave?"

    Leave a comment:


  • VA Dutch
    replied

    Not to fall into the "tin foil hat" category, but the biggest reservation about a 'national data base' of firearms owners is the worry about confiscation. As we have seen in other nations (and indeed in some of our own states), registration often leads to confiscation. If I am a law-abiding citizen, it is none of the government's business whether or not I choose to exercise a constitutional right. It is a RIGHT - not a privilege subject to bureaucratic or legislative fiat.

    I'd prefer the REVERSE of such a system, though, 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.

    _________________________________


    "Ever notice how those who love and adore 'gun control' laws forced on the rest of us are usually people who are protected by police officers or private security guards WITH GUNS?" -- G. Gordon Liddy

    __________________________________
    Last edited by VA Dutch; 05-29-2011, 11:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 3615 users online. 201 members and 3414 guests.

Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X