The White House's Coming Gun Control Push

[jrance@iacwds.com 716]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110127/ts_dailybeast/12075_guncontroleffortcomingsoonfromwhitehouse

[chevyman097 2,579]

AH GREAT more panic buys incoming.

[Heath_h49008 442]

The bigger story is, The Brady Camp. was never contacted, nor any of the other anti-gun boots on the ground.

 

 

The effort the WH is putting out doesn't even qualify as half-hearted, at least so far.

 

We are always aware, but I can't see panic over a below average gun control push.

[chevyman097 2,579]

The bigger story is, The Brady Camp. was never contacted, nor any of the other anti-gun boots on the ground.

 

 

The effort the WH is putting out doesn't even qualify as half-hearted, at least so far.

 

We are always aware, but I can't see panic over a below average gun control push.

 

 

O Really?

 

Have you already forgotten the Saiga 12 ban spam and the magazine buy panic after tuscon?

 

 

I find it funny anyone would say they dont see a panic over "below average gun control push". People panic at the slightest event or suggestion of gun control.

[Heath_h49008 442]

Ahh... you are correct Sir.

 

 

I should have used the term "Rational people" before the word "panic".

 

 

My bad.

[magsite20 1,664]

[BuffetDestroyer 969]

Ahh... you are correct Sir.

 

 

I should have used the term "Rational people" before the word "panic".

 

 

My bad.

Unless it is done by agency ruling on prior laws (like the ATF study on importation of shotguns under GCA 1968) or executive order, then it will not get through the House, and not likely to make it through the Senate.

 

Would I put it past him to do back door shit like having OSHA or EPA regulate 1 round of ammo as full suit Hazmat dangerous and producing Carbon emissions that are regulated by huge taxes?

 

No. That is the only shit we have to worry about and CAP & TRADE and his other failed bills will likely be forced on us that way.

[raleighsaiga 81]

The article reads like the President wants to tighten legislation around the mental health angle. His advisors know that a capacity ban or the like is the surest way to a major FAIL, since it won't have a chance in Congress and will be used against him in 2012.

 

The "improve enforcement of existing gun laws" angles will allow him to appease his base while giving Republicans a chance to look reasonable.

[SOPMOD 254]

So all of you guys diagnosed with stress related disorders or clinical depression or even grief counseling will be suspect when trying to purchase a firearm?

Edited January 28, 2011 by SOPMOD

[yakdung 2,926]

The article reads like the President wants to tighten legislation around the mental health angle. His advisors know that a capacity ban or the like is the surest way to a major FAIL, since it won't have a chance in Congress and will be used against him in 2012.

 

The "improve enforcement of existing gun laws" angles will allow him to appease his base while giving Republicans a chance to look reasonable.

 

That is my take as well. Leberal anti gun idiot Chuck Schumer I believe is behind this.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/16/schumer-require-military-report-applicants-drug-use-prevent-gun-purchases/

 

Yakdung

[Koljec 37]

So all of you guys diagnosed with stress related disorders or clinical depression or even grief counseling will be suspect when trying top purchase a firearm?

 

 

Not if they just aim to enforce form 4473 type requirements. 12(f), Being adjudicated mentally defective, isn't easy to achieve. Something like 26% of the adult American population has mental illness of some sort in any given year. A relatively small percentage of that 26% ever gets treatment, and only a fraction of that percentage of a percentage ever reaches adjudication status.

 

But how effective is that form at preventing guns from entering unsafe hands? I'm one of the few square people left, but I'd bet that gun buyers routinely lie about questions 12(e), pertaining to unlawful use of controlled substances. 12(h) and (i) aren't effective because domestic violence often doesn't achieve felony status, so taking away gun rights for such abuse is arguably unconstitutional. 12(j) about renouncing citizenship is a joke that might actually make you chuckle in the gun shop, where 5 out of 10 guys are arming themselves because of Obama, if you think about it.

 

I don't know that I'm really presenting any argument here, just pointing out that 4473 is laughable.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Koljec

[BpS12 512]

"Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association, the powerful gun lobby group, has stayed largely silent following the Arizona shootings."

 

Why does this not suprise me.

 

As for the Arizona shooting, Where was this guys family and friends? Hel, if an Islamic Yemeni father can turn his son into the authorities(or try to), should we expect less from an American?

 

I'm sorry, as a father I DO realize that we can't keep track of everything our children are up to. But perhaps we should. Esp, if there is a history of mental issues.

 

Perhaps we need to get back to the concept of being our families' keepers.

[BuffetDestroyer 969]

I think they will try to do the same stuff that Clinton did by adding more misdemeanor offenses to the prohibited list.

 

Regarding the 4473, they can add:

 

12.j.) Are you creepy or have you ever been a loner?

12.k.) Have you ever been cited for a moving violation?

12.l.) Have you ever jaywalked?

12.m.) Did you vote for someone other than Barack Obama?

 

In seriousness, DUI and other types of misdemeanor disturbances may be added.

[lvjeffro 30]

"Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association, the powerful gun lobby group, has stayed largely silent following the Arizona shootings."

 

Why does this not suprise me.

 

As for the Arizona shooting, Where was this guys family and friends? Hel, if an Islamic Yemeni father can turn his son into the authorities(or try to), should we expect less from an American?

 

I'm sorry, as a father I DO realize that we can't keep track of everything our children are up to. But perhaps we should. Esp, if there is a history of mental issues.

 

Perhaps we need to get back to the concept of being our families' keepers.

 

dont let buffet destroyer see you say that he feels that strips away his rights...

[zenman223 460]

I think anytime they try and regulate who can or can not own a firearm its bad for the public in general but I really dont see a problem with implimenting a way to keep mentally ill people from owning firearms. Of course the problem is finding a way to do it where it doesnt effect everyone and even then it wouldn help much.

 

After what i seen the other day at my sheriffs office picking up a permit I think there should be some kind of mental capacity test befor getting a handgun. I watched a guy and a girl who couldnt even read, and didnt even know there address apply for a CCW. The girl actually said "I cant spell my name b/c it has too many letters" she may have been joking but these were 2 very stupid individuals, They deputy had to basically fill it out for them!!! when i said something to the deputy about them he replied "unfortunatley there is no IQ test for a CCW"

[chevyman097 2,579]

After what i seen the other day at my sheriffs office picking up a permit I think there should be some kind of mental capacity test befor getting a handgun. I watched a guy and a girl who couldnt even read, and didnt even know there address apply for a CCW. The girl actually said "I cant spell my name b/c it has too many letters" she may have been joking but these were 2 very stupid individuals, They deputy had to basically fill it out for them!!! when i said something to the deputy about them he replied "unfortunatley there is no IQ test for a CCW"

 

That is a very slippery slope I dont want to start down for sure.

 

You think 100-150 years ago everyone could read and write? Yet guns were a way of life for most and I bet most were more competent than some these days.

 

Oh and I could just see this one. You cant read or write! no guns for you. But we can still put a gun in your hand and force you to go to war!

[BuffetDestroyer 969]

"Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association, the powerful gun lobby group, has stayed largely silent following the Arizona shootings."

 

Why does this not suprise me.

 

As for the Arizona shooting, Where was this guys family and friends? Hel, if an Islamic Yemeni father can turn his son into the authorities(or try to), should we expect less from an American?

 

I'm sorry, as a father I DO realize that we can't keep track of everything our children are up to. But perhaps we should. Esp, if there is a history of mental issues.

 

Perhaps we need to get back to the concept of being our families' keepers.

 

dont let buffet destroyer see you say that he feels that strips away his rights...

Did you ever watch the documentary on Jeffrey Dahmer? His parents had no fucking clue about what he was doing until after he got arrested.

 

In hindsight it is really easy to say tragedies like Tuscon and Virginia Tech were 100% preventable if we had done this or that, but 1984's Big Brother is the ultimate result of trying to legislate something from tragedies like these.

 

If creepy is reason enough for you to justifiably arrest someone and lock them away, then I obviously have different values than you as I un-apologetically believe in the Constitution and the presumption that you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers.

Edited January 27, 2011 by BuffetDestroyer

[Koljec 37]

I un-apologetically believe in the Bill of Rights and its "innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers" clause.

 

Here's the 6th:

 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

 

There is no such clause there or elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. You have a right to trial by jury, but presumption of innocence was adapted from English law. It is not a right or even a rule, although juries are sometimes instructed to keep it in mind.

 

If innocence until proven guilty really existed as a right, it would be impossible to hold offenders without bail.

 

You point is well-taken though. Creepy isn't enough to deny someone. Anyway, creepy pretty much describes most gun shops

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2011 by Koljec

[BuffetDestroyer 969]

I un-apologetically believe in the Bill of Rights and its "innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers" clause.

 

Here's the 6th:

 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

 

There is no such clause there or elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. You have a right to trial by jury, but presumption of innocence was adapted from English law. It is not a right or even a rule, although juries are sometimes instructed to keep it in mind.

 

If innocence until proven guilty really existed as a right, it would be impossible to hold offenders without bail.

 

You point is well-taken though. Creepy isn't enough to deny someone. Anyway, creepy pretty much describes most gun shops

 

Post has been edited. The Supreme Court did uphold the "innocent until proven guilty" in 1895 in Coffin vs. United States, but the 5th & 6th Amendments don't explicitly say those words despite establishing guidelines that coincide with the principle.

 

Accusing and convicting people of crimes they haven't "yet" committed (yet are capable of) is something that I believe a free society would abstain from. Conspiracy laws often walk a fine line in my opinion.

 

Owning a shoelace and a Saiga at the same time was ruled "Constructive Intent" at one point... the punishment for that is not a way I want to spend 10 years of my life and $100,000.

[Koljec 37]

 

Post has been edited. The Supreme Court did uphold the "innocent until proven guilty" in 1895 in Coffin vs. United States, but the 5th & 6th Amendments don't explicitly say those words despite establishing guidelines that coincide with the principle.

 

Accusing and convicting people of crimes they haven't "yet" committed (yet are capable of) is something that I believe a free society would abstain from. Conspiracy laws often walk a fine line in my opinion.

 

Owning a shoelace and a Saiga at the same time was ruled "Constructive Intent" at one point... the punishment for that is not a way I want to spend 10 years of my life and $100,000.

 

 

Coffin is about jury instruction, and it segues into reasonable doubt. There isn't a larger right to be taken from it. We're all vulnerable, I'm afraid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[danklab 57]

from the article... "But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check."

 

 

Isn't that wording nice??? They're pretty much saying that he used an "assault weapon" in the crime, and just walked in a gun shop and bought a pistol like groceries. I'm so tired of biased media... Fucking morons.