Ron Paul proposes Second Amendment Protection Act

[Dudethebagman 222]

what are the chances he would fallow through if elected?

 

About 100%. I'm sure the Congress, including most of the Republicans - supposedly the pro-2nd Amendment party - would not go along with it though.

 

The problem here is that as president, Ron Paul would no longer be a legislator. He would be president and could sign the bill into law and encourage it to pass, but presidents don't get to make laws or vote on them. Congress does.

[saltydecimator 482]

know what nix does, wastes tax payer dollars. gee, do felons walk into gunstores and ask themself, will i get approved today??? HELL NO!!

[Shandlanos 1,470]

what are the chances he would fallow through if elected?

 

About 100%. I'm sure the Congress, including most of the Republicans - supposedly the pro-2nd Amendment party - would not go along with it though.

 

The problem here is that as president, Ron Paul would no longer be a legislator. He would be president and could sign the bill into law and encourage it to pass, but presidents don't get to make laws or vote on them. Congress does.

 

This is true. However, if he has balls the size of Texas, he can instruct the federal law enforcement agencies and the office of the attorney general to discontinue enforcing certain federal laws. Might get him impeached, even jailed, but it could make a huge impact. Alternatively, he could leave the system alone and simply pardon every individual convincted of a federal crime he felt should not be a crime.

[DrThunder88 912]

Wow, I'd never even thought of it, but that would open an amazing and fascinating new check in the typical system of checks and balances. I, like just about everyone in this thread, am not a legal scholar, but I don't see how either Congress or the Supreme Court could a stop the president from issuing blanket pardons or clemencies without changing Article II. Maybe that's why it hasn't been done in the past.

[ScuseMePrincess 23]

From what I've heard, Ron Paul would use the power of executive orders to fix a lot of the things that are broken. Of course, I've also heard that he would abolish the ATF if elected, so maybe that's all just wishful thinking.

[Koljec 37]

know what nix does, wastes tax payer dollars. gee, do felons walk into gunstores and ask themself, will i get approved today??? HELL NO!!

 

 

Twice I've been in a shop when someone trying to buy a gun checked out positive for outstanding warrants. One guy was wanted for traffic violations. He was no big deal. The other guy was wanted for domestic violence. He did not leave quietly. The checks are necessary, and, by itself, form 4473 is only good for getting a set of fingerprints.

 

I agree with your sentiment -- guns should be easy to buy for good citizens. Recently my city asked the state to limit handgun sales to 1 per month, and, the moment I found out, I emailed my representative.

 

But doing away with background checks is no good. You should worry instead about advances like this, from msnbc.com front page today: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454/ns/today-today_rossen_reports/

[jimdigriz 580]

Twice I've been in a shop when someone trying to buy a gun checked out positive for outstanding warrants. One guy was wanted for traffic violations. He was no big deal. The other guy was wanted for domestic violence. He did not leave quietly. The checks are necessary, and, by itself, form 4473 is only good for getting a set of fingerprints.

 

Because backgrounds checks occasionally do some good does not make them either constitutional or desirable. If you want background checks, you should take the honest way and propose a constitutional amendment that allows them.

[haugpatr 972]

know what nix does, wastes tax payer dollars. gee, do felons walk into gunstores and ask themself, will i get approved today??? HELL NO!!

 

 

Twice I've been in a shop when someone trying to buy a gun checked out positive for outstanding warrants. One guy was wanted for traffic violations. He was no big deal. The other guy was wanted for domestic violence. He did not leave quietly. The checks are necessary, and, by itself, form 4473 is only good for getting a set of fingerprints.

 

I agree with your sentiment -- guns should be easy to buy for good citizens. Recently my city asked the state to limit handgun sales to 1 per month, and, the moment I found out, I emailed my representative.

 

But doing away with background checks is no good. You should worry instead about advances like this, from msnbc.com front page today: http://today.msnbc.m...rossen_reports/

 

Please get it through your head, Criminals do not obey laws, that is why they are criminals! Why the hell do you think having laws will stop criminals that don't obey laws? The laws only erode freedoms of law abiding citizens, THEY DO NOT STOP CRIMINALS! Freedom is not free!

[saltydecimator 482]

so you are telling me your constitutional rights need to be revoked for traffic tickets???? are you frucking shitting me?????????????

 

wall street has been reporting on the increase in federal felony violations since the founding of the country. we went from like a few to hundreds, if not thousands....

 

and guess what, sometimes, you can be denied a nix check for domestic violence, butt that doesnt necessarily mean you cant posesses firearms, so what good does the check do then???? i appreciate ya playing devils advocate. but in the war of freedom vs govt meddling, freedom should always win

[22_Shooter 1,560]

so is there anything constitutional about the background check?? fuck no there isnt...

 

 

As if they could even do a background check when the constitution was drafted

 

I cherish gun rights, but I'm also not going follow a literal interpretation or assume that most people nowadays are even remotely what the drafters would call citizens.

 

Some of you must not live in cities.

 

I live in a city. 9 out of 10 people here own at least one firearm, some own more. The only ones that don't are the Commieforia transplants and the out of state college brats.

 

Me worry about NCIC(the correct acronym)? Nope. FTF is still 100% legal here, and I exercise FTF whenever I can.

 

Do you think Joe Gangbanger is going to worry about NCIC? Nope. He can get a "disposable nine" if he wants one bad enough.

 

Do you think Joe Felon is worried about NCIC? Nope. See Joe Gangbanger, get disposable nine.

 

NCIC is different from NICS.

 

NCIC is for checking to see if someone is wanted, or stolen guns/vehicles/other serialized goods, DMV info, missing person, etc, etc.

 

(Before I took the class and got NCIC certified for work, I thought it was the same as NICS, too.)

[physicsnerd 139]

know what nix does, wastes tax payer dollars. gee, do felons walk into gunstores and ask themself, will i get approved today??? HELL NO!!

 

 

Twice I've been in a shop when someone trying to buy a gun checked out positive for outstanding warrants. One guy was wanted for traffic violations. He was no big deal. The other guy was wanted for domestic violence. He did not leave quietly. The checks are necessary, and, by itself, form 4473 is only good for getting a set of fingerprints.

 

I agree with your sentiment -- guns should be easy to buy for good citizens. Recently my city asked the state to limit handgun sales to 1 per month, and, the moment I found out, I emailed my representative.

 

But doing away with background checks is no good. You should worry instead about advances like this, from msnbc.com front page today: http://today.msnbc.m...rossen_reports/

 

I must admit I am confused by your arguments. You like background checks but then imply that the linked article is trying to draw to light the fact that in many states face to face transactions are legal WITHOUT a background check.

 

Are you pro background check for new guns and anti background checks for used?

[armory 142]

I don't have to have a background check to speak my mind.

If laws were enacted proposing that, the outcry would be overwhelming. It would not stand in court or on the streets.

 

More crime and death has been formulated by and with the coercion of words than guns.

 

Why do we succumb to this fear and allow our rights to be infringed upon?.

When you trade any freedoms for security, you are on a slippery slope of tyranny.

[BuffetDestroyer 969]

When I was in college, my drunk roommate was trying to show how tough he was at 3:00 AM on a weeknight by starting a fight with me. If I had fought him and the cops were called, I would not pass a NICS check due to domestic violence since he had lived with me for a period over several months.

 

If the outcome of a domestic disturbance call is not resolved, usually one or more people are arrested without proof of fault and they will not be able to pass the NICS check thereafter regardless of whether they instigated it or were victims of gender bias.

 

When I was working at a gun store, a guy came in that was arrested and convicted of removing arrowheads from public land and is now a felon that cannot pass a NICS check so he legally purchased a muzzle loader handgun instead.

 

NICS and the Brady law is un-Constitutional and we have already hit the slippery slope with domestic violence being added to felonies, drugs and mental illness... before long if you have ever taken aspirin or caffeine or had a moving violation, you won't be able to own a firearm.

Edited February 9, 2012 by BuffetDestroyer

[DogMan 2,343]

I can pass any background check known to man, and have for years. Yet I continually get delayed by NICS. The only thing I can figure is that they think if you're "too clean" there must be something wrong with you. If the system worked like it should I would support it. But it doesn't, so I don't. It sucks and they need to get their shit together and figure out something that doesn't keep punishing the good guys.

[gunfun 3,931]

know what nix does, wastes tax payer dollars. gee, do felons walk into gunstores and ask themself, will i get approved today??? HELL NO!!

 

 

Twice I've been in a shop when someone trying to buy a gun checked out positive for outstanding warrants. One guy was wanted for traffic violations. He was no big deal. The other guy was wanted for domestic violence. He did not leave quietly. The checks are necessary, and, by itself, form 4473 is only good for getting a set of fingerprints.

 

I agree with your sentiment -- guns should be easy to buy for good citizens. Recently my city asked the state to limit handgun sales to 1 per month, and, the moment I found out, I emailed my representative.

 

But doing away with background checks is no good. You should worry instead about advances like this, from msnbc.com front page today: http://today.msnbc.m...rossen_reports/

 

 

I used to work at both a prosecutor's office and at a jail processing paper work. I want to clarify that nothing sickens me more than the pathetic guys who beat their ladies. I would gladly institute public floggings if I could for them.

 

However there is a massive problem in the system. Many jurisdictions have a law or at least a PD policy that if DV is called, at least one person gets locked up for 24 hours. Statisistics strongly show that it will be the guy almost every time reguardless of who the aggressor is or even if he participated. (screw it. people are yelling and it's 4am your coming with us buddy. We'll sort it out in the morning.) The way Nics works though, any record of a DV arrest will block you ,and void your CCW. Note that I did not say conviction. So this means that you can be found innocent or not guilty and still lose a constitutional right. In fact even if they never charge you and just let you go 20 minutes later, you get this record as long as you get in the door of the jail. (I know. I used to put in that info.) Also keep in mind that DV laws are sort of crazy. Smashing a cell phone is DV in most places. (if you want to get really mad, realize that in WA, spitting on a cop is felony assault III, whereas beating your wife just short of breaking bones is only a misdemeanor assault 4dv )

[Koljec 37]

so you are telling me your constitutional rights need to be revoked for traffic tickets???? are you frucking shitting me?????????????

 

wall street has been reporting on the increase in federal felony violations since the founding of the country. we went from like a few to hundreds, if not thousands....

 

and guess what, sometimes, you can be denied a nix check for domestic violence, butt that doesnt necessarily mean you cant posesses firearms, so what good does the check do then???? i appreciate ya playing devils advocate. but in the war of freedom vs govt meddling, freedom should always win

 

In those cases, it was the fact that there was an outstanding warrant on the gun buyer, not so much the offense. If you have a warrant for traffic violations, you turn yourself in, pay the fines or arrange to pay them, and then you can buy your gun.

 

The domestic violence guy probably won't have it so easy. States can take away the guns of individuals implicated in domestic violence until the matter is resolved. This is controversial, of course. Like GunFun was saying, DV matters can result in forefeiture of guns and guns rights even without convictions.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Koljec

[Koljec 37]

 

I must admit I am confused by your arguments. You like background checks but then imply that the linked article is trying to draw to light the fact that in many states face to face transactions are legal WITHOUT a background check.

 

Are you pro background check for new guns and anti background checks for used?

 

For new guns, I see the check more as a burden for the FFL. And that's ok because he's making a profit, and so he should have some responsiblity for the transaction, a cost of doing business.

 

For used guns between individuals, I don't think there's a good solution that won't create a costly middleman or make used guns harder to sell. What's the difference between an illegal face to face sale and falsely reporting a firearm stolen?

 

I dunno. just a rough idea. not sure i'm set in it.

[physicsnerd 139]

I must admit I am confused by your arguments. You like background checks but then imply that the linked article is trying to draw to light the fact that in many states face to face transactions are legal WITHOUT a background check.

 

Are you pro background check for new guns and anti background checks for used?

 

For new guns, I see the check more as a burden for the FFL. And that's ok because he's making a profit, and so he should have some responsiblity for the transaction, a cost of doing business.

 

For used guns between individuals, I don't think there's a good solution that won't create a costly middleman or make used guns harder to sell. What's the difference between an illegal face to face sale and falsely reporting a firearm stolen?

 

I dunno. just a rough idea. not sure i'm set in it.

 

I may not agree with you but thanks for clarifying and understanding correctly that I wanted more details and wasn't trying to be a jerk!

[BuffetDestroyer 969]

FUN FACT: Felons are exempt from NFA rules (National Firearms Act of 1933) due to the requirement of self incrimination under the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights when submitting a Form 1 or Form 4.

 

What that means is that non-felons are the only people that can be convicted of illegally owning a suppressor, machine-gun, short barreled rifle, short barreled shotgun, destructive device or AOW with a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine under NFA law. All a felon can be charged and convicted on according to the SCOTUS is "Felon in possession of a firearm" which carries a smaller maximum penalty that depending on your state may just mean a few extra months of probation.

 

So if you are a felon, feel free to own or make illegally converted machineguns that cost non-felon civilians 10's of thousands of dollars to legally own. It is the same legal penalty as owning a .22 single shot as a convicted felon!

 

Yay Gun Laws!

 

ETA: I am trying to be a jerk to illustrate how ineffective gun laws actually are!

Edited February 10, 2012 by BuffetDestroyer

[Fitty% 808]

what are the chances he would fallow through if elected?

 

About 100%. I'm sure the Congress, including most of the Republicans - supposedly the pro-2nd Amendment party - would not go along with it though.

 

The problem here is that as president, Ron Paul would no longer be a legislator. He would be president and could sign the bill into law and encourage it to pass, but presidents don't get to make laws or vote on them. Congress does.

 

As for "if he would follow through"...all you have to do is look at his 30 year congressional voting record. And for the other yes he wouldnt be a legislator but he would have the power of veto. That NDAA that Obama signed would have never happened with Dr. Paul. You also have to think about executive orders. Not that he would make more(because i dont think he likes the idea of the executive branch signing things into law on its own) but that he could get rid of all of them.