Why Harry Reid Must Make Universal Background Checks Part Of Gun Law Reform
By Zack Beauchamp on Mar 20, 2013 at 9:47 am
Tuesday night, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) declared that an assault weapons ban would not be in the gun law reform package he was planning to bring to the floor for a cloture vote, a move expected by all sides of the debate. But in an surprising twist, Reid also suggested that a provision requiring gun purchasers to undergo background checks could also be excluded from the comprehensive package.
Though Reid cited a recent breakdown in bipartisan negotiations over the issue of whether dealers should retain records of background checks, failing to pass the measure would deal a major blow to gun violence prevention efforts. Advocating for universal background checks isn’t just an obvious political winner — it’s absolutely critical to keeping guns out criminal hands and, most importantly, preventing innocent people from dying from gunfire:
1. Universal background checks deter criminals from purchasing guns. This isn’t really a contestable point. 80 percent of crime guns are purchased through “private” sales, which means from unlicensed dealers at gun shows or other people currently exempted from having to run background checks under federal law. Forcing all sellers to run background checks both deters criminals from buying guns (if they fail the check they can be prosecuted) and prevents a check on sellers that might be inclined to sell to shady characters if they didn’t know they were committing a federal crime. Unsurprisingly, the best available research suggests that “states which do not regulate private gun sales, adopt permit-to-purchase licensing systems, or have gun owner accountability measures, like mandatory reporting of gun thefts, export significantly more guns used by criminals to other states that have constrained the supply of guns for criminals by adopting strict gun sales regulations.” That’s why the law needs to be federal — states with lax background checks are de facto shipping crime guns around the country.
2. They save lives. Johns Hopkins gun expert Daniel Shapiro recently studied what happened when Missouri repealed its “purchase-to-permit” law, which was essentially a universal background check requirement. Turns out that, while regional and national gun homicides were declining, Missouri’s spiked by 25 percent. If the federal law worked in reverse, reducing gun homicides by 25 percent would have saved 2,750 lives per year.
3. They’re virtually cost free. Background checks are very cheap, very quick, and easily accessible to virtually all Americans. So background checks wouldn’t really prevent law-abiding Americans from purchasing guns, but would significantly limit criminal access to firearms.
4. Americans are united around them. Poll after poll has confirmed that somewhere around 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks. The figure is basically identical among gun owners (87 percent) and slightly lower, but still overwhelmingly high, among NRA members (74 percent).
Reid, who has a relatively high NRA rating (for a Democrat), has expressed skepticism about some parts of President Obama’s comprehensive gun violence prevention package. Still, lawmakers will ultimately have to vote on background checks — as an amendment or part of a comprehensive plan — and those who oppose the measure, they’ll have to justify their position to the 90 percent of Americans who support it
[ May 31, 2013, 06:55: Message edited by: Bob Frey ]
Posted by glassman on :
80 percent of crime guns are purchased through “private” sales, which means from unlicensed dealers at gun shows or other people currently exempted from having to run background checks under federal law"
ray, you do realize that 99% of drug crimes are drugs purchased thru unregistered private sales too right?
all this is going to do is set up another 'drug war' type scenario with even higher stakes and higher mortality, and worst of all much more colateral damage...
as long as they do not require registration lists? most gun owners are going to accept this type of law, the problem is that states like your "beautiful california" (i think you must avoid most of the highwyas to think that) now require registrations....
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Florida firearm violence hits record low; concealed gun permits up
State: $500 reward for turning in illegal gun owners Updated: Wednesday, March 20 2013, 09:19 PM EDT ALBANY – A program aimed at rewarding people who blow the whistle on illegal gun owners has yet to show significant results, says three police agencies in the New York. In February of 2012, 11 months before the passage of the NY SAFE Act, Governor Cuomo’s office announced a four pronged initiative to curb gun violence. One of the programs was a cash reward for citizens who lead police to the arrest and confiscation of illegal fire arms. Known as the “Gun Tip Line”, New Yorkers can call a toll free hotline to alert police if they believe someone they know has an illegal gun. The call would be picked up by state police and local law enforcement would be notified if the tip seemed reliable. If there was an arrest the tipster would receive as much as $500.
what would be real intersting would be to see how the courts look at these piad tips" in these cases. the cops are basically buying a warrant for 500$?
Posted by raybond on :
I wonder in these hard economic times how many people are trying for the reward?
Posted by glassman on :
apparently none so far.. but that's not surprising. how many people run around caliming they own an illegal gun?
Posted by buckstalker on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: how many people run around caliming they own an illegal gun?
Connecticut Governor Compares NRA Vice President To ‘Clown At The Circus’
By Annie-Rose Strasser on Apr 7, 2013 at 10:02 am
Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy (D) tore into the National Rifle Association during an appearance on CNN’s State Of The Union on Sunday. The NRA this week introduced its legislative response to the massacre in Malloy’s home state. Its plan focuses on arming school staff.
Malloy specifically called out NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre for his absolute opposition to commonsense gun regulations, including the new gun law just enacted by Connecticut. After watching a clip of LaPierre mocking Connecticut’s new law, Malloy shot back, “Wayne reminds me of the clowns at the circus. They get the most attention”:
MALLOY: That’s what he’s paid to do. But the reality is is that the gun that was used to kill 26 people on December 14th was legally purchased in the state of Connecticut even though we had an Assault Weapons Ban. But there were loopholes in it that you could drive a truck through. This guy is so out of whack, it’s unbelievable. 92% of the american people want universal background checks. I can’t get on a plane as the Governor of the state of Connecticut without somebody running a background check on me. Why should you be able to buy a gun? Or buy armor-piercing munitions? It doesn’t make any sense. He doesn’t make any sense. Thus my reference to the circus.[...]
Bring it back to reality. Why are they against universal background checks when 92% of the American public is in favor of them? If they can’t answer that question — and they can’t, Candy — What this is about is the ability of the gun industry to sell as many guns to as many people as possible even if they’re deranged, even if they’re mentally ill, evening if they have a criminal background, they don’t care. They want to sell guns.
Malloy then went on to say that there is “precious little” he can agree on with the NRA, and that the organization is coming “pretty darn close” to recommending that every single American carry a gun. He also pointed to a recent report by the Center For American Progress that shows states with weaker gun laws also have the highest rates of gun violence.
(45)
Posted by glassman on :
I can’t get on a plane as the Governor of the state of Connecticut without somebody running a background check on me.
really? i belive that is what you call a LIE. there is a NO FLY list and that is it...
want to make a no-gun list? i would like to see that implemented... oh wait they do that in CA already.... and it's mess...
go toyour doctor complaining of depression and you lose your rights? people will not go to their doctor to seek the help they need..
Veterans with PTSD? sorry buddy thanx for your service but you just lost your rights by Serving your country....
Posted by glassman on :
Is checking watch lists equivalent to doing background checks?
Nope, said Dallas-based TSA spokesman Luis Casanova. "Bottom line," Casanova told us by email, "we compare against watch lists, we do not conduct background checks (unless you are coming to work with us)."
Zimmerman guided us to the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center, whose executive director, Marc Rotenberg, said in an interview that after 9/11, the government sought to require full-fledged checks of passengers, but those plans were cancelled in 2004. He called the current comparison of passenger information to names on watch lists "streamlined background checks."
Law professors with expertise in this area said the use of watch lists isn’t the same as background checks.
Matthew Finkin of the University of Illinois, who specialties include privacy issues, said background checks, most often invoked by prospective employers, commonly consider someone’s credit worthiness, outstanding criminal charges and civil litigation, bankruptcies, driving and marital records -- even their use of social networking. He said he’s not heard of airlines running background checks of all passengers: "The airlines are not going to spend that kind of money. Why would they care if you have a speeding ticket?"
Counter-terrorism legal expert Gregory Maggs of the George Washington University Law School similarly said background checks occur when individuals apply for government jobs or seek a security clearance. Doing them for every airline passenger would be unmanageable, he said: "Too many people buying airline tickets."
Zimmerman said by email that the FBI and TSA are "large, powerful bureaucratic organizations with very significant resources to check on travelers. It would also make sense that they would not divulge all the depth of details of what they do."
Upshot: Every airline passenger must hurdle a check of basic personal information against a federal database before stepping onto a commercial flight. But these do not constitute actual background checks. We rate the statement Barely True.
what? no response Ray? do you understand why i assert that the polls are rigged now? becuase real background checks are very intrusive. The NRA in stating they are opposed to real 100% background checks is responding to the actual defintion of the phrase. My wife and i (and you too based on your work experince) have been thru real background checks. they even went to our old elem. schools...
if we all got on the same page to discuss how to keep guns out of criminals hands? we might actually accomplish a little bit. it shuld be easy to compile alist of people who have been in front of Judge and found guilty or incompetence and not allow them to purchase a firearm. That is is not a background check tho. reuiring backround checks for every gun pruchase int e US in it's real governmnet ID'ed form would cost somebdy thousands. I was told my BC cost about 25 grand.
i am told that it is nearly impossible to identify whetehr or not people can even be idnetified as illegal immigrants and not eligible to work. i know that is not true, but people do claim that it ieasy to assume a legit ID and get wrok so real criminals would still do that to get guns and avoid having their name show up on "the list".
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
ray is just a mother jones/media matters mouthpiece who cant think for himself.
Posted by raybond on :
no response some of us do more than sit by our key boards.
if you want a reponse i will give you one the polls are rigged,BS.
Anyway I don't like your attitude and I am changing my mind and going to work hard as hell for a complete gun bill thru the local DNC. Thank you for making me see the light. It is just a matter of time before things change. Just as sure Rush Limbaugh is a fat slob and Hannity is a midget things will change some time in the future.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Originally Posted By Raybond:
It is just a matter of time before things change. Just as sure Rush Limbaugh is a fat slob and Hannity is a midget things will change some time in the future. _________________________________________________
Will that really be the best thing for future generations?
I am getting so tired of our rights eroding away just to be protected. Emotions have been played big time by our politicians to get people sucked in again.
Young people i can see this happening to, but older people should have a clue by knowing what has happened in the last 50+ years to their rights.
But on the other hand, older people seem to feel they need more protection, because they are older and won't be around to see what rights will be left in 20 years... if any
-
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: no response some of us do more than sit by our key boards.
if you want a reponse i will give you one the polls are rigged,BS.
Anyway I don't like your attitude and I am changing my mind and going to work hard as hell for a complete gun bill thru the local DNC. Thank you for making me see the light. It is just a matter of time before things change. Just as sure Rush Limbaugh is a fat slob and Hannity is a midget things will change some time in the future.
i'm glad you are able to do more than sit by your keyboard ray. i often wonder ow many are only able to do just that. the polls are all rigged. I don't nromally name drop but you should apreciate that i have met and have friends that have wqroked closely with Noam Chomsky author of Manufacturing Consent. I highly recomend the book if you want to understand how they can come up with any of the poll numbers that they do. In this case? They don't actually tell people what a Background check is.
I'm going to ask you again, should a doctor be able to take your guns away? What if some person living in your house goes the doctor and says they are having sad thoughts? Should your doctor be able to send the SWAT gun collction team by to confiscate and destroy all your guns? Or should some bureacrat decide that because you post on the wrong blogs you are a threat and cannot be trusted with gun? You can't exapect them to hire people to sit around read all these blogs, so thye'll just take note of which ones you log onto and ban you that way..
That seems to me to be CHANGE you want to bring.
There is no dialogue happening in this country anymore, it ALL just a big game of Manufacturing Consent now.
Posted by buckstalker on :
Ray...you really need to re-think your tag line
On second thought...the latter part fits you to a tee...
If you really believe that background checks are going to STOP or even slow down the mass killings, you are indeed a fool
Posted by glassman on :
i haven't read the new bill myself, but several sources are now reporting that it will allow Doctors to put your name on the NICS. Interestingly the claim is that you will not even know you are on the list until you try to use it.
this should be found unconstitutional under teh Fifth ammendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
if this is implemented? many people will stop seeking medical treatment and probably get worse.
Posted by raybond on :
National back ground checks are coming, and you guys made your statements and gave your stupid big mouth opinion. And I don't care what you think ,Live with it. Or your other options are fight it. You can even go up in the hills and try to start a new revolution. You know sit around a fire eating mre's and telling your friends that we don't know who we are messing with until the beer makes you pass out.
Maybe you guys have commercial interest in guns on a small scale or you are just stupid either way the law will change and the only people that will be hamperd will be criminals a lawful living citizen will still be able to buy a gun.
Posted by raybond on :
On Thursday, the senate will take-up a comprehensive gun bill that seeks to expand the background check system, enhance penalties for gun trafficking, and invest in school safety. The action will represent the first Congressional debate about firearm safety since the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
The vote to proceed to the measure will come just one day after Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) announced a bipartisan agreement to require background checks for gun sales at gun shows and online websites. Under their amendment, sales of firearms in these venues will be treated in the same way as gun purchases at federally licensed gun shops: individuals will have to undergo background checks that will be recorded with a federal licensed dealer. “All personal transfers are not touched whatsoever,” Manchin said.
As Congress considers the measure and conservatives led by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Rand Paul (R-KY) try to slow down debate, here is the ThinkProgress guide to the myths and misinformation surrounding background checks:
MYTH
REALITY
Background checks are ineffective and restrictive. Checks “would significantly restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans while doing little or nothing to protect against further gun violence.” [Sen. Mike Lee, 4/9/2013]
Ninety percent of background checks can be completed in less than two minutes and the Manchin-Toomey proposal would expedite the process. Under the amendment, if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, the background check would be required to be conducted in 24 hours. Background checks have already contributed to violence reduction. In the 14 states and Washington D.C. that require background checks for private handgun sales (including Toomey’s home state of Pennsylvania): 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners, 17 percent fewer firearms are involved in aggravated assaults, and 48 percent less gun trafficking.
Criminals will avoid background checks. “My problem with background checks is, you’re never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks.” [Wayne LaPierre, 1/30/2013]
From 1999 to 2009, 1.8 million people were blocked from purchasing guns after failing a background check because they had criminal records or suffered from mental illness. In fact, Seung Hui Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech and Jared Loughner, who targeted Gabby Giffords, both obtained their guns legally and slipped through the cracks of the existing background check system. The Manchin-Toomey bill addresses this by encouraging states to provide their available records into the federal database and directing future grant money towards creating systems to send records into the database. The bill will also reduce federal funds to states that do not comply.
Background checks will lead to a gun registry. “The Democrats’ proposed legislation would require universal background checks for private sales between law-abiding citizens, which according to DOJ would be effective only if accompanied by a national gun registry. ” [Sen. Ted Cruz, 4/9/2013]
Federally licensed gun dealers have conducted background checks for more than 40 years without ever creating a national gun registry, which federal law specifically prohibits. Under this agreement, federal dealers would conduct screenings for private sellers and keep the record; the federal government would not. When a gun is recovered at a violent crime, law enforcement can use the records to track down the perpetrator. All information identifying the buyer generated by the background check would be destroyed by law enforcement within 24 hours. The Manchin-Toomey amendment explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry in three different places and treats the misuse of records for the pursue of creating a registry as a felony punishable by 15 years in
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: National back ground checks are coming, and you guys made your statements and gave your stupid big mouth opinion. And I don't care what you think ,Live with it. Or your other options are fight it. You can even go up in the hills and try to start a new revolution. You know sit around a fire eating mre's and telling your friends that we don't know who we are messing with until the beer makes you pass out.
Maybe you guys have commercial interest in guns on a small scale or you are just stupid either way the law will change and the only people that will be hamperd will be criminals a lawful living citizen will still be able to buy a gun.
Your ilk are the kind that take private info on conceal and carry or just handgun owners in cities and publish it irresponsibly for everyone to see who has one. Not because its the right thing to do but because your far left agenda is just so broken it has no boundaries.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: National back ground checks are coming, and you guys made your statements and gave your stupid big mouth opinion. And I don't care what you think ,Live with it. Or your other options are fight it. You can even go up in the hills and try to start a new revolution. You know sit around a fire eating mre's and telling your friends that we don't know who we are messing with until the beer makes you pass out.
Maybe you guys have commercial interest in guns on a small scale or you are just stupid either way the law will change and the only people that will be hamperd will be criminals a lawful living citizen will still be able to buy a gun.
LOL ray, you're wrong. just because the Senate takes up discussion doesn't make for new law... the House won't pass it, you seem angry.
your wild accusations are a bit off... i've never passed out form drinking in my life. don't like it that much...
Posted by raybond on :
No kidding glass, back ground checks are coming if not now within 12 months.
You are living in la la land
Posted by raybond on :
On an average day in the U.S., guns are used to kill more than 80 people, injure almost 300 more, and commit approximately 3,000 crimes. Since John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, more Americans have been shot and killed on our own soil than in all the 20th-century wars combined.
What’s not well-known is that the vast majority of the approximately 12,000 annual gun murders and 66,000 non-fatal shootings are committed by people who have no legal right to a gun. How do criminals and other prohibited people get guns so easily? Through a highly efficient, organized, and profitable business of gun trafficking that moves guns from legal manufacture to dealers to criminals and young people who can’t buy guns legally.
Where do crime guns come from?
Virtually every gun starts out as a legally manufactured product, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) points to three common ways guns move from legal distribution channels to the criminal market: •Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms. •Straw purchasing: Straw purchasing is the most common way criminals get guns, accounting for almost 50% of trafficking investigations. A straw purchaser is someone with a clean record who buys guns on behalf of someone legally prohibited from possessing guns. Straw purchasers are often the friends, relatives, spouses or girlfriends of prohibited purchasers. The two Columbine High School shooters recruited friends to buy guns for them at Colorado gun shows. One of the buyers admitted she would not have bought the guns if she had been required to submit to a background check. •Gun Shows and private gun sales: Gun shows have been called “Tupperware parties for criminals” because they attract large numbers of prohibited buyers. A loophole in federal law allows unlicensed or “private” sellers, many of whom work out of gun shows, to lawfully sell or transfer guns without conducting a criminal background check. Gun show dealers have been known to advertise to criminals with signs that read “no background checks required here.”
How Federal Gun Policy Contributes to Illegal Trafficking
Congress has passed a series of laws in recent years that allow easy access to guns and restrict law enforcement’s ability to go after traffickers. Three policies in particular impede law enforcement’s ability to prosecute traffickers: •Keeping crime gun trace information secret: Until 2002, the ATF released aggregate crime gun trace reports to local police departments, researchers, policymakers and public safety advocates. The reports revealed for the first time that 1.2% of federally licensed gun dealers supply 57% of the guns used in crime. But, bowing to pressure from the gun lobby, Congress voted to restrict police access to crime gun trace data and cut off public access altogether. These restrictions, known as the Tiahrt Amendments (named for the Kansas Congressman who sponsored the bill), have passed in every Department of Justice budget since 2003, despite the fact that prominent law enforcement associations oppose them as a serious threat to public safety. •Handcuffing the ATF: The ATF, the sole government agency charged with enforcing federal gun laws, has operated without a permanent director since the Bush Administration, and operates with just 1,800 agents to monitor approximately 77,000 gun dealers. Given these constraints, it would take ATF 22 years to inspect all federally licensed gun dealers. Even if the ATF had the manpower to inspect most gun dealers, federal law limits the agency to a single unannounced inspection of a dealer in any 12-month period. Congress has made it increasingly difficult for the ATF to revoke licenses of crooked gun dealers. •An absence of records: It is impossible for law enforcement to know the whereabouts of millions of firearms in circulation today because Federal law explicitly bars the ATF from establishing a database of retail firearms sales, and private gun sellers are not required to keep a paper trail of transactions. Prior to 2001, federal authorities maintained criminal background check records for up to six months. Under President Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed this policy and ordered the destruction of all criminal background check records within 24 hours. Even though the General Accounting Office found that destroying these records endangers public safety, the policy remains in effect.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: No kidding glass, back ground checks are coming if not now within 12 months.
You are living in la la land
what is goingt o happen in 12 months to change the House of reps? a democrat takeoever?
you all are closing the door on any hope of the Democrats taking back congress with all this stuff, which is exaclty what i pointed out to you the day this new anti-gun campaign started. In fact? i think you all just forgot the lesson you should have learned in 94. That was when Clinton lost it all... maybe this is good thing tho becuase Hillary is setting up her run now, and this should put a GOP in the WH next time.. sadly? i don't thnk it will even have to be good candidate after this fiasco.
you have already lost on most of the issues. there will be no semi-auto wepaon ban (so-called assault guns) and there will be no magazine limit either.
IF the only thing that comes from this is expanding the NICS? you will have lost.
IF doctors are really allowed to add people tot eh NICS list without Due Process? then it will be struck down by SCOTUS.
Posted by raybond on :
I never was for the ban on semi autos if you ever read any of my posts. Until yesterday when you pissed me off. so what we will get there as for doctors you are living a dream. Either way it is a win for me the republicans will get fried in the mid terms and then it will pass. Face you have the NRA on your side not the people..
Posted by glassman on :
i do read your posts ray. you should know better by now than to get pissed off at a blog post. you said you were interested in human nature awhile back- don't you think it's an intereting aspect of human nature that the NTSB doesn't does not do "backgorund checks", but for guns we can? or thta illegal immigrants cannot be trtacked for employment purposes but gun buyers can be chacked in five minutes?
fact is? i am not ameber of the NRA- i joined twenty years ago and they sent me so much junk mail i think they used all my mebership fees to solicit more money from me- i quit.
gun violence won't go awy from this universal background check any more than drug abuse has gone away from the govt war on drugs.
suicide is highest in nations where guns are not even legal- yet most gun deaths in this country are suicides. more thna half.
as tto polls? you should go look up the polls and the questions they actually asked. for instance only 53% of people want more gun controls not the 90% that asked for background checks... makes you wonder what the 1000 people they polled are really thinking doesn't it? i mean that's alot of peopl right? 1000 people? and if i ask the right 1000 people the right questions int he right way? i bet i can get any results i want for polling purposes
Posted by buckstalker on :
Which one of your "think tanks" came up with that brilliant deduction ray?
Posted by raybond on :
On The Anniversary Of Virginia Tech, The NRA May Once Again Try To Weaken Gun Laws
By Aviva Shen on Apr 16, 2013 at 10:45 am
Six years ago, Virginia Tech University went down in history as the site of the deadliest school shooting to ever occur in the US. Seung-Hui Choi, a 23-year-old English major, gunned down 56 people and killed 32. Choi had been declared “an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness” by a court in 2005, yet was still able to pass a background check to buy two guns and several high capacity magazines. Armed with these high-powered weapons, Choi’s massacre took just 15 minutes from start to finish.
Since Virginia Tech, there have been 20 mass shootings in the US. In December, the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, CT, came the closest to matching the Virginia Tech bloodbath, with 26 casualties.
The post-Newtown push for more effective gun regulation in some ways mirrors the momentum for change after the Virginia Tech massacre. In the aftermath of Virginia Tech, the Bush administration proposed legislation requiring states to share with the FBI the names of people who had been involuntarily committed to mental health facilities, so they could be included in the federal background check system. Congress passed the bill, but only after the National Rifle Association extracted two concessions that ultimately undermined the entire law.
The NRA refused to support the bill unless it also required states to set up gun rights restoration programs for mentally ill people, and narrowed the definition of a “mental defect.” These two provisions both enabled the bill’s passage and created new loopholes in the Gun Control Act of 1968. As a 2011 New York Times investigation detailed, the law has been rendered toothless by lenient state restoration programs. Hundreds of people with mental health issues have their gun rights restored every year — and some go on to use those guns to kill themselves or others:
In a typical case, Joshua St. Clair, who served in Iraq with the National Guard, got his gun rights back last year. About six months earlier, Mr. St. Clair, now 22, had heard a rattling at his gate. He said he “kind of blacked out” and the next thing he knew, he was pointing his M-4 assault rifle at his friend’s chest. That led to a temporary detention order, treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and loss of his firearms rights. He took a note from his psychiatrist to his restoration hearing, which he said “lasted maybe about five minutes,” but he said the judge did not even ask to see it.
In the wake of the Newtown shooting, the NRA spent months loudly denouncing any effort to strengthen gun laws. To appear supportive of background check reform, the gun lobby threw its weight behind a deceptive bill claiming to strengthen background checks. In fact, the bill would let individuals who had been involuntarily committed skip judicial screening to restore their gun rights. Instead, people could apply to have their names removed from the system immediately.
The Senate’s most promising background checks compromise will likely come to a vote this week. The NRA remains opposed, but one gun group enthusiastically endorsed the bill because of its stiff penalties for gun record compilations and its restoration of gun rights for veterans deemed “mentally defective” by Veterans Affairs. Yet even with these concessions to gun rights groups, the background check bill is still short of the 60-vote threshold needed to defeat a filibuster.
To entice pro-gun lawmakers, the Senate may also consider adding an NRA-supported amendment requiring all states to recognize concealed-carry permits, essentially wiping out tough state laws. Another concession on the table would allow unlicensed gun dealers who live more than 100 miles from a federally licensed dealer to forego background checks.
(5)
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
NRA chief: Obama 'bit off more than he could chew'
The head of the National Rifle Association mocked President Obama's Rose Garden "tantrum" after losing the gun control fight in the Senate, charging Thursday that Obama suffered the worst defeat of his presidency because "he bit off more than he could chew."
David Keene told Secrets that the president and his team misplayed their hand because they don't have a sense of the public's attitude toward gun control. "They just can't gauge the public reaction to what they do because they don't have any sense that the public has feelings different than they do," said Keene.
"He thought and his folks thought that Newtown changed everything. Newtown was a tragedy but that doesn't change people's basic values and feelings," added the NRA president. "What he learned is that he bit off a lot more than he can chew and that you can't just talk your way to a victory. You have to have something that makes some sense and he what he was proposing just didn't make much sense."
The loss devastated the president, who ranted about the NRA's power during his Rose Garden address after Wednesday's vote.
Keene, however, saw it differently. "It was the biggest legislative defeat he suffered but that does not justify the unseemly picture of a president of the United States throwing a public tantrum."
Keene said that many lawmakers who voted against the background check expansion felt that if it passed, gun control advocates would simply return to the issue to chip away more at the Second Amendment, so they decided to "just stop it now."
In a way, Keene signaled that to the sponsors of the Senate compromise, Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin. Keene recalled that he took a day off last week to fish for trout on the Missouri River in Montana. "Unfortunately, I took my cellphone with me and my cellphone rings in the midst of my float and it's Joe Manchin, who's talking about how reasonable his idea is. And finally I said, 'Look, I'm in the middle of the Missouri River, I've got a trout on the line. I don't agree, you will have to make your own decisions, and I hung up. You have to keep your priorities straight."
quote:Originally posted by raybond: No kidding glass, back ground checks are coming if not now within 12 months.
You are living in la la land
well ray, i think you need to check your maps and see who is living in LaLaLand.
your party has just wasted almost all the political capital it held after the last election.
this is why this country is so screwed. we have real problems that need real answers but everybody is out to push their own personal BS agenda.
Posted by raybond on :
You are still living in lala land glass. The senate voted against the will of the people just wait till the next shooting that is coming and it is.
You sufer and buck can make another case that the schools don't have armed security in them to prevent these shootings not knowing we already have over 20,000 schools that already have armed security. Including the first school shooting at columbine that had armed security on duty. That was a great job what a waste.
Also glass loosing a battle does not mean you lost the war
Posted by glassman on :
no they didn't vote against the will of the people ray, that's what i have been trying tell you. Those polls were rigged for the numbers the liberals wanted. the USA is pretty screwed up right now, but in general the country is not full of as many wussies as you want to think
i lived in California for a long time. i know LaLa when i see it and smell it- you definitely live there.
it's OK. LaLaLand has it better points to...
Posted by glassman on :
this explosion in West Texas? it's only 19 mile (accroding to ggogle) from Waco. The explosion happens the day before the anniversary of the massacre there? It seemed like toomuch coincidence to me, but the right wingnuts that would be doing that are not the Boston bomebrs are they? it appears teh boston bombers are "former" Chechiens.... If i were really paraoid? I would think the old KGB guys would have been behind them in order to get US to support the Russian dictatorship (in democratic costume) against Chechnia...
but it isn't really all connected is it? it's just modern times, and let's face it, there's alot of mental illness out there..
Posted by raybond on :
LALA Land maximus and the polls are rigged you are paranoid glass. and the kgb is every where no wonder you think somebody wants to take your guns.
remeber mid terms are not that far off.
Posted by glassman on :
that poll was rigged for the results they got ray, as to the conspiracy chit? it's merely a hobby, i find it amusing nothing more.
we'll chat after the elections.... i beleive that it was 12 Democrats who voted against the new laws becuase htey are in states that would have voted them out if they didn't...
remebr that the GOP House would have had to vote too but it didn't even pass the Senate where the Democrats are in charge...
Posted by raybond on :
the poll was not rigged glass period. You have your right to your opinion.
I know there were dems that voted against the bill and the way the bill was made it very disagreeable to many. The bill contained much more than background checks.
Now I will talk to you later I must get down to the construction site of my new home to make sure everything my wife wants is there,and to finish it up.
Posted by Lockman on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: Justice
Connecticut Governor Compares NRA Vice President To ‘Clown At The Circus’
By Annie-Rose Strasser on Apr 7, 2013 at 10:02 am
Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy (D) tore into the National Rifle Association during an appearance on CNN’s State Of The Union on Sunday. The NRA this week introduced its legislative response to the massacre in Malloy’s home state. Its plan focuses on arming school staff.
Malloy specifically called out NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre for his absolute opposition to commonsense gun regulations, including the new gun law just enacted by Connecticut. After watching a clip of LaPierre mocking Connecticut’s new law, Malloy shot back, “Wayne reminds me of the clowns at the circus. They get the most attention”:
MALLOY: That’s what he’s paid to do. But the reality is is that the gun that was used to kill 26 people on December 14th was legally purchased in the state of Connecticut even though we had an Assault Weapons Ban. But there were loopholes in it that you could drive a truck through. This guy is so out of whack, it’s unbelievable. 92% of the american people want universal background checks. I can’t get on a plane as the Governor of the state of Connecticut without somebody running a background check on me. Why should you be able to buy a gun? Or buy armor-piercing munitions? It doesn’t make any sense. He doesn’t make any sense. Thus my reference to the circus.[...]
Bring it back to reality. Why are they against universal background checks when 92% of the American public is in favor of them? If they can’t answer that question — and they can’t, Candy — What this is about is the ability of the gun industry to sell as many guns to as many people as possible even if they’re deranged, even if they’re mentally ill, evening if they have a criminal background, they don’t care. They want to sell guns.
Malloy then went on to say that there is “precious little” he can agree on with the NRA, and that the organization is coming “pretty darn close” to recommending that every single American carry a gun. He also pointed to a recent report by the Center For American Progress that shows states with weaker gun laws also have the highest rates of gun violence.
Unfortunately the clown is Malloy, this guy is killing our state....hopefully one of the next Democratic Presidential candidates will tag him for VP and get him away from us.
(45)
Posted by raybond on :
Severely Conservative Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ban On Gun Sales To People Under 21
By Ian Millhiser on Apr 30, 2013 at 4:21 pm
(Credit: AP)
It is illegal for a person under the age of 21 to buy beer. Yet, a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association wants them to be able to buy a deadly machine that exists for the sole purpose of forcing a high-velocity slug of metal into another human being. Yesterday, one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country disagreed.
Two George W. Bush appointees to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit joined a unanimous revised opinion yesterday rejecting the NRA’s claim that 18 year-olds should be allowed to buy handguns from federally licensed firearm dealers. The opinion is complex and relies at least two alternative grounds for upholding the ban on gun sales to young people, but its discussion of how the founding generation would have treated this NRA’s absolutist view of gun rights is particularly significant:
The historical record shows that gun safety regulation was commonplace in the colonies, and around the time of the founding, a variety of gun safety regulations were on the books; these included safety laws regulating the storage of gun powder, laws keeping track of who in the community had guns, laws administering gun use in the context of militia service (including laws requiring militia members to attend “musters,” public gatherings where officials would inspect and account for guns), laws prohibiting the use of firearms on certain occasions and in certain places, and laws disarming certain groups and restricting sales to certain groups. It appears that when the fledgling republic adopted the Second Amendment, an expectation of sensible gun safety regulation was woven into the tapestry of the guarantee. . . .
Scholars have proposed that at the time of the founding, “the right to arms was inextricably and multifariously linked to that of civic virtu (i.e., the virtuous citizenry),” and that “[o]ne implication of this emphasis on the virtuous citizen is that the right to arms does not preclude laws disarming the unvirtuous citizens (i.e., criminals) or those who, like children or the mentally imbalanced, are deemed incapable of virtue.” This theory suggests that the Founders would have supported limiting or banning “the ownership of firearms by minors, felons, and the mentally impaired.” . . . . Notably, the term “minor” or “infant”—as those terms were historically understood—applied to persons under the age of 21, not only to persons under the age of 18.
The NRA will no doubt be distressed to learn that one of their biggest bugaboos — a government-run registry of firearm owners — was commonplace around the time of the founding. They will be even more dismayed to see it described in a judicial opinion strongly suggesting that such registries are constitutional. And this comes from a three-judge panel that includes two Bush-appointees.
Notably, the Fifth Circuit released an order today indicating that seven of the court’s 15 active judges voted to have the full court rehear the case. Had one more judge voted for such a rehearing, it would have taken place. Of these seven, only six actually indicated that they disagreed with the three-judge panel’s decision. The seventh judge, Obama appointee Stephen Higginson, was silent on whether he agreed with the panel’s decision. All six of the judges who called for gun regulation to be less strict than beer regulation were Republicans.
The NRA will no doubt appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, but the Fifth Circuit’s resolution of the case is a good sign that the justices will not strike down the ban on gun sales to young people. Beyond the fact that two Bush-appointees voted to uphold this law, the judges who called for it to be struck down include some of the most severely conservative judges in the country.
Judge Jerry Smith, for example, is the same judge who ordered a Justice Department attorney to write a letter he likely intended to use to embarrass President Obama. Judge Edith Clement sat on the board of a group that used to be one of the leading sponsors of corporate-friendly junkets for judges. And Judge Priscilla Owen once took thousands of dollars worth of campaign contributions from Enron when she sat on the Texas Supreme Court, and then wrote a key opinion reducing Enron’s taxes by $15 million.
The author of the pro-NRA opinion was Judge Edith Jones. Jones once told a liberal colleague to “shut up” during the middle of an oral argument, and she is one of the most frequent attendees of junkets for judges. Jones also wrote a dissenting opinion claiming that a woman who “was repeatedly propositioned, was groped and grabbed, [had] pornography [] placed in her locker, and [had] other employees broadcast[] obscene comments about her over the company’s public address system” did not experience sexual harassment.
So, while it is true that six judges did adopt the NRA’s view in this case, they are the kinds of judges who sit well to the right of even this Supreme Court.
Posted by raybond on :
NRA ‘Home Defense’ Course Instructs Audience To Store Guns In Kids’ Room
By Zack Beauchamp and Scott Keyes on May 4, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Gun owners should store a gun in their kids’ room, according to a ‘Home Defense Concepts’ seminar offered at the National Rifle Association’s Annual Meeting, comments that came just days after the fatal shooting of a two-year-old at the hands of her five-year-old brother.
The course was taught by Rob Pincus, who owns the popular firearm instruction company I.C.E. Training. Pincus argued that, in the event of a home invasion, parents would instinctually run to their children’s room anyway, they might as well have a gun stored there to kill two birds with one stone:
PINCUS: How about putting a quick-access safe in your kids’ room? [...] Good idea or bad idea? We have an emotional pushback to that. Here’s my position on this. If you’re worried that your kid is going to try to break into the safe that is in their bedroom with a gun in it, you have bigger problems than home defense. [Laughter] If you think that the kid who’s going to try to break into the safe because it’s in their room isn’t sneaking into your room to try to break into stuff, you’re naive and you have bigger problems than this. So let’s settle that issue and think about it. In the middle of the night, if I’m in the bathroom or getting a glass of water or in the bedroom or watching TV in the living room, if that alarm goes off and the glass breaks and the dog starts barking, what’s the instinct that most people are going to have, in regards to, “am I going to run across the house to get the gun, or am I going to run over here to help the screaming kid?” And if I’m going to go to the kid anyway, and I have an extra gun and an extra safe, why not put it in their closet?
Watch it (pardon the technical glitch at 1:25):
Defensive gun use against home invasions are extremely rare. Many of the statistics commonly cited by the NRA and its allies are based on mathematically impossible calculations, and the best available evidence suggests that almost all criminals hit in gunfire were shot by other criminals.
However, children are wounded and killed by accidental gunshots with horrifying frequency. Roughly 900 kids were killed in gun suicides or accidents in 2010. A Center for Disease Control study of 30,000 incidents of children killed by accidental firearm discharge found kids 0-4 were 17 times more likely to be killed in a gun accident in the states with the four highest levels of gun ownership than those with the four lowest (the figure was 13 times for kids aged 5-14). Relatedly, a RAND Institute study found that only 39 percent of parents who own guns kept their guns “locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.”
Pincus teaches an intruder defense course in schools around the country.
Posted by glassman on :
TIME/CNN Poll Shows Increasing Number Of Americans Won't Give Up Civil Liberties To Fight Terrorism from the the-government-can't-give-you-safety,-but-it-can-take-your-rights dept
When discussing NYPD Police Chief Ray Kelly's assertion that "privacy is off the table" as a result of the Boston bombing, I mentioned I hadn't heard any public outcry demanding the government and law enforcement step in and do something (i.e., curtail civil liberties) in response to the tragedy. The responses we were seeing seemed to be nothing more than legislators and law enforcement officials pushing their own agendas.
This isn't just me not hearing what I don't want to hear. There's actual data available that explains the lack of concerned noises from Americans. A CNN/TIME poll shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans aren't interested in sacrificing rights to combat terrorism.
When given a choice, 61 percent of Americans say they are more concerned about the government enacting new anti-terrorism policies that restrict civil liberties, compared to 31 percent who say they are more concerned about the government failing to enact strong new anti-terrorism policies.
This is a vast improvement over 1996, when a post-Atlanta Olympics bombing poll showed only 23% opposed giving up freedom in exchange for fighting terrorism.
Breaking it down further, the poll also shows a bit of split along party lines. Self-identified Democrats are most likely to put their faith in government/law enforcement to make the U.S. "safer" by curtailing freedoms (51%). Republicans are less likely to favor this exchange (41%). For independents, less than a third (32%) are willing to give up some freedom to combat terrorism.
Senators Pat Toomey, Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer - their amendment would have encouraged your psychiatrist to turn you in to the FBI's gun ban list?
165,000 military veterans have already lost their gun rights because of the “see a VA shrink, lose your gun rights” precedent from the Clinton-Bush era.
Many people have already received a letter from Pistol Permit Departments informing them that their license was immediately revoked upon information indicating they are seeing a therapist for anxiety and had been prescribed an anxiety drug. s never suicidal, never violent, and has no criminal history, yet the laws ALREADY allow this confiscartion of rigths without "Due process"
Posted by glassman on :
here's why you cannot have doctors taking away people's rights without at minimum court hearing awith least two doctors and being represetned by a lawyer, - everybody is a candidate to be the conductor on the crazy train these days because it's so damn profitable to diagnose psychiatric disorders and of course prescribe drugs to treat it.......
Psychiatry's New Diagnostic Manual: "Don't Buy It. Don't Use It. Don't Teach It." That's what psychiatrist Allen Frances, chair of the DSM-IV task force, has to say about DSM-5.
—By Michael Mechanic | Tue May. 14, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
Mother Jones: What you mean by "saving normal"?
Allen Frances: There's been a rapid diagnostic inflation over the course of the last 35 years, turning problems of everyday life into mental disorders resulting in excessive treatment with medication. Pretty soon everyone's going to have a mental disorder or two or three, and it's time we reconsider how we want to define this and whether the definitions should be in the hands of the drug companies, which is very much what's happened in recent years.
MJ: To what degree has this trend accelerated lately?
AF: We were very, very conservative in doing DSM-IV, which came out in 1994. Despite our efforts to tame diagnostic inflation, the rates of attention deficit disorder (ADD and ADHD) have tripled, the rate of autism increased by almost 40 times. The rate of childhood bipolar disorder increased by 40 times. And the rate of adult bipolar disorder doubled. A lot of this was driven by the drug companies. They had new products on patent—very expensive; it gave them the means and the methods to spread the message to doctors and patients that mental disorders were easily diagnosed, often missed, caused by chemical imbalance, and treated with an expensive pill.
quite a few of these mass shooters have been on prescritption drugs too...
BTW? if you are not responsible enough t own a gun? you aren't repsonsible, and can't be trusted to drive car or anything else either.
Dozens injured when car runs into Virginia parade
By Martin Weil, Published: May 18 E-mail the writer
About 60 people were injured Saturday when a car plowed into participants and spectators at the Appalachian Trail Days parade in Damascus, Va., sending hundreds of people scattering amid shouts and screams. Damascus police chief William H. Nunley said the driver had apparently been affected by a medical condition. The condition was not specified.One news account indicated that he may have been elderly.
The vehicle, which had been in the parade, was apparently traveling about 20 to 25 miles an hour when it ran into the crowd about 2:10 p.m. authorities said. People fled, shouting and yelling, Harris said. Posted by glassman on :
this is screwed up ray, do you really support this?
At a house in Fontana, agents were looking for a gun owner with a criminal history of a sex offense, pimping, according to the attorney general’s office. Marsh said that while the woman appeared to be home, they got no answer at the door. Without a warrant, the agents couldn’t enter and had to leave empty- handed.
They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.
“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.
Involuntarily Held
In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she’d been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.
Todd Smith, chief executive officer of Aurora Charter Oak Hospital in Covina, where documents provided by Phillips show she was treated, didn’t respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment on the circumstances of the treatment.
Phillips said her husband used the guns for recreation. She didn’t blame the attorney general’s agents for taking the guns based on the information they had, she said.
“I do feel I have every right to purchase a gun,” Phillips said. “I’m not a threat. We’re law-abiding citizens.”
this lady who happens to be a Nurse, went to the hospital for HELP and says she was having complications with her medications she was already on... she also claims she was not involuntarily admitted because she went to them. she was there for two days and released.
so they took her husbands guns? 4 months later?
no due process here at all..
it gets better... you know how cops (and other fools) tell you that you have nothing to hide if you are innocent so you should let them in your house to look around even if they don't have a warrant? well that ain't true anymore either... Probable Cause
Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a “disqualifying event,” such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn’t sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.
As Congress fails to make progress on reforming the nation’s gun laws, state legislatures have filled the void. A number of states around the country, and not just deep-blue ones, have taken steps to crack down on gun violence. Even some very conservative states have defeated National Rifle Association (NRA) supported bills that would have significantly weakened state gun laws.
Here’s a run-down of ten instances of state progress that were in some cases mere proposals as recently as this January:
1. Colorado. A purple state with a strong gun culture, Colorado nevertheless enacted universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines.
2. California. Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed legislation at the beginning of May that would provide $24 million for confiscating illegally owned weapons that the police have identified, but hasn’t had the resources to seize. California is also considering thirty-odd measures strengthening the state’s gun violence prevention measures.
3. Georgia. The Georgia legislature killed a bill at the end of the last legislative session that would have allowed concealed carry in churches, courthouse, and college campuses.
4. Maryland. Maryland enacted one of the most sweeping new gun laws in the country, including an assault weapons ban, restrictions on magazine size, and a requirement that all gun purchasers get a license and submit a fingerprint sample.
5. Rhode Island. The Ocean State’s legislature is considering an omnibus gun bill, supported by its governor, Lincoln Chafee (I), that would set up a police registry of guns to better track crime guns as well as make it harder to get a concealed carry permit.
6. Delaware. In early May, Governor Jack Markell (D) signed a universal background check bill into law.
7. Wyoming. The Wyoming legislature, which can be quite hostile to gun regulation, voted down a bill authorizing teachers to carry guns.
8. New York. New York strengthened its already strong gun laws, including stricter assault weapon and high capacity magazine bans.
9. Connecticut. Connecticut also passed a comprehensive package that included universal background checks for bullets as well as guns, as well as an assault weapons ban and magazine restrictions.
10. Nevada. Just this Wednesday, the Nevada Senate passed a universal background checks bill that would require a check on all private sales.
While several states have also loosened their gun laws after Newtown — and a few advanced laws so extreme that they are almost certainly unconstitutional – the above examples prove that the NRA’s stranglehold over the gun conversation isn’t nearly as tight as some believe, and that concerted effort at the state level can have significant effects on the gun policy landscape.
Posted by raybond on :
Politics
Santa Monica Mass Shooter Planned To Kill Hundreds With Stockpile Of Guns And Ammo
By Aviva Shen on Jun 10, 2013 at 11:45 am
The gunman's arsenal. (Credit: NBC Los Angeles) Five are dead after a gunman rampaged through Santa Monica, CA, on Friday, ending at the local community college. The Santa Monica shooting marks the tenth mass shooting on a school campus in California since 1976.
The suspect, 23-year-old John Zawahri, was known as an angry young man with a “fascination with guns” that worried family friends. Zawahri was born in Lebanon but has lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years. In a press conference on Sunday, police said the troubled young man had planned out the attack and likely hoped to kill hundreds. The spree lasted 10 minutes, ending when police shot and killed Zawahri on the scene.
Zawahri allegedly killed his father and brother and burned down their house before heading toward Santa Monica College, armed with a ballistic vest, an AR-15 assault rifle and a duffel bag filled with an estimated 1,300 rounds of ammunition, magazines, and a .44 revolver. He shot and wounded a woman driving by his house, then carjacked another woman. On the way, he shot at pedestrians and a city bus, injuring 3 people.
Once he arrived at the community college, Zawahri gunned down a groundskeeper, 68-year-old Navarro Franco, killing him immediately, and his 26-year-old daughter, Marcela, who died in the hospital on Sunday. Witnesses say students scattered, jumping out windows and running for their lives. He then shot an unidentified woman in her 50s outside the library, went inside and fired 70 rounds at students who had been studying for exams. Police ultimately shot and killed him in the library.
Zawahri had a run-in with the law in 2006, but police could not give more details as he was a juvenile at the time. A law enforcement source told CNN that Zawahri had been hospitalized for mental issues after talking about wanting to hurt someone.
It is not clear where Zawahri got a hold of his AR-15 — the same weapon used in the Aurora theater shooting and the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre last year. Technically, certain AR-15 rifles are prohibited in California, but critics have said the law is rendered essentially toothless by loopholes and legal challenges. In May, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a new law to give law enforcement more funding to crack down on illegal assault weapons owned by convicted criminals and people with serious mental illnesses.
Many have already expressed shock that such violence could occur in a sleepy, affluent town like Santa Monica. But similar towns in southern California have suffered through random mass shootings in recent years. A 20-year-old man went on a shooting spree across suburban Orange County just a few months ago, killing four. Eight died in a hair salon shooting in Seal Beach, CA, three years ago. And in 2005, four others were killed in a rampage in the small town of Thousand Oaks, not far from Santa Monica.
Since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in December, more people have been killed by guns than the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq War. Though Congress failed to pass an enormously popular proposal to expand background checks in April, the Center for American Progress has identified several ways federal enforcers can crack down on illegal gun sales and stop shootings before they happen
Posted by glassman on :
apparently it is still not clear where he got his guns, it was announced tonight the cops say that the guns were untraceable... expect that to become much more common when stronger background check laws get implemented...
Posted by raybond on :
Justice
Nevada Governor Vetoes Background Check Bill On Eve Of Newtown Six Month Anniversary
By Josh Israel on Jun 14, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV) Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV) Defying 87 percent of the state’s voters, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) vetoed a universal background check bill for gun purchases on Thursday — one day before the six-month anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.
The bill, passed by Nevada’s Democratically controlled state legislature, would have required a background check prior to all gun sales and would have increased reporting of mental illness data. The National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm called the proposal “misguided gun control legislation being forced on law-abiding citizens of Nevada.”
But far from being forced upon the people, the state legislature was acting on their clear will. An April poll found 87 percent of Nevada voters think a background check should be required on all gun sales — including 75 percent of Nevadans who said that “strongly favor” such a law. Just nine percent of Nevadans strongly opposed the idea. A February poll had shown 86 percent support in Nevada for universal background checks. After voting against the Manchin-Toomey background check compromise in the U.S. Senate, Nevada Sen. Dean Heller (R) was one of several opponents to see their approval ratings drop.
But Sandoval said his decision was in part due to the loud voices of that small minority that does not believe criminal background checks should be required prior to gun purchases. He told a local TV station that he’d received 28,000 calls from opponents, and only about 7,000 from supporters. While indicating support for the mental health data reporting provisions, he wrote in his veto message that requiring an instant background check would have been “an erosion of Nevadans’ Second Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution” that might “subject otherwise law-abiding citizens to criminal prosecution.”
Sandoval’s veto came on the of the six-month anniversary of the tragic shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. At the time, he released a statement lamenting the shootings and ordering that the state’s flags be flown at half-staff in memory of the victims
Posted by glassman on :
ray, if that article is correct in all of it's so-called facts? the governor won't be there much longer. don't hold your breath waiting on his recall...
i'm not going to try to explain to you anymore how the media blitz has created all these factoids that aren't facts. i've splained it to you before. if enough people really feel as strongly as chris matthews and a very few loudmouth lying liberals on TV do? all these politicians will be out of office real soon. and NASCAR will be bankrupot by the end of the year, and i'll be farting blue monkeys
on more real issues? am i the only person left in the USA that hasn't forgotten that WE armed Osam bin ladne in Afghanistan? and we are getting ready to create a dozen new bin lladens in Syria now? are they going to do background checks on everybody over there that get a US Govt certified surface to air shoulder launched stinger missile? i seriously doubt it... hellin a bucket man... hell i n a b u c k e t
Posted by raybond on :
your living in a fools world glass
Posted by glassman on :
i don't argue that one ray, but, it's - not - of - my - making.
like i toldja, if thinkprogress is correct? there will be only democrats running the country after the next round of elctions... LOL.. president hillary ... just as creepy as pres'int jeb... but i'm not going to be surprised by any of it....
so how many unregistered stingers will Obama be sending to Syria? 200? 500? how do i get registered for one myself? tax stamp? hell i n a b u c k e t
Posted by raybond on :
Well glass let me put this to you in a way that it does not hurt your feelings, knowing how important you think your opinion is.
Every gun fanatic in the world thinks because 80 to 90 percent of the folks that think background checks on all guns is a good idea and nothing else matters. Not so its is not a core political issue to them. It is something that they may like to see but it most likely not going to affect the way they vote.
Like me, the core issues to me are employment at good wages and conditions, health care, peace and education. If the those issues came at the expense of a pro gun platform that was to eliminate all background checks on any gun I would support it. Why because I think employment, health care and education would have far more of a positive affect than a background check. The future would have a much more sane and productive society.
Posted by glassman on :
LOL ray. i actaully have an opinion of my own, you are the one posting thinkprogress propaganda all the time.
i voted for Obama and supported him based on the same issues.
you got one poll one day that said 90% and you and all your propagandist buddies can't get that stupid number outa your head. that poll has been critisized by several other pollsters. they admit it was an outlier(stistically) at best... yet you cannot leave it alone
i'm not even against background checks, as i have told you many times. i am against people bending the truth (to be polite about it)
i ama lso against a doctor being able to get you on the list without going in fornt of Judge. that will be broken in SCOTUS if when it passes. Due Process is garanteed
i wonder how many background checks we are going to do in SYRIA? alqueada is there trying like hell to get some WMD and i just wanna know if THEY are going to get a backgorund check before Obama gives them an automatic weapon or a stinger...
Posted by glassman on :
as to living in a fools world? MS just passed an open carry law..
i can pack a rod and carry it openly anywhere apparently.. except the courthouse, the local sherrif says he won't allow it...
i don't think i will start carrying, i don;t feel inclined. but i might... if i wanted to... i don't know- i do know it won't make me less likey to go and about.
Posted by buckstalker on :
Glass...in Michigan there is no "Open Carry Law"
Open carry has been legal in Michigan since before Michigan became a state...we don't have a law prohibiting it so...it's legal...but...
you see VERY few people exercising that right...
Oh and Ray...your poll numbers are BULL$HIT
Posted by rounder1 on :
Georgia has always been open carry too as far as I know...with a few exceptions...courthouses, political events, churches, school zones, etc.
you just have to a license if you wanna conceal it.
You could actually sling your high-powered deer rifle and walk all over town and be legal...prolly get some crazy looks, calls to 911, etc...but you would be legal. Pretty well guarantee that the cops would come talk to you though.
I hear about people doing this from time to time. Mostly super gun enthusiast determined to exercise their right just to show they can...personally I have no issue with it.
But they typically end up at least having a talk with an officer because people are not used to seeing it and report a man with a gun. 90 percent of the time they tell the cop that they are just exercising their right to do so and the cops leave them alone. The rest of the time you get a badazz with a badge or officer ignorant...they tend to escalate the issue by trying to tell the citizen that they are doing "something" wrong.
But in truth the persons that obnoxiously carry a 300 Magnum into the local Wal-Mart are actually hoping for a confrontation with someone.... they view it as opportunity to bring awareness or to educate.
Posted by rounder1 on :
Oh...you can conceal in the glovebox of a vehicle in Georgia without a license....but you better disclose that pretty quick if you are pulled over....
Posted by raybond on :
AZ is an open carry state. Unless other wise posted you can carry without a lic. on any state property.
As usual buckstalker you are full of crap.
Posted by glassman on :
ray, buckstalker says your poll numbers are FOS and you respond by saying he is FOS.
do you see th differnce? this i waht i care about...
backstlaker alos admitted that he voted for Obama this past year. he honselty said he wasn''t happy abut it, but he chose to get out there and pick "your side".
people like me and buck are "rugged indivdualists' without party affiliation and we are the people any poltician on either side needs to win the elections...
chasing us off your side with all these propagandist posting and telling us we are FOS won't win the elvtions. in fact? back when Clitnon overstepped with his gun ban laws? he lost the congress.. it got hime re--elected, but he lost his power base...
there may not be enough of us in the middle who only vote for a person on their issues and no their party, but there's enough to make the differnce in every Natioanl election... state elctions? not so much, that's why congress is so unpopular. ask peopel if they like their own congressperson and they will give abuot 50% aproval not the 9% natiaol... if you stop and think about that just a little? you'll realise how that applies to gun laws too
peopel "in the middle" like me and buck who hold no party affiliations will vote against the most extrem poltiican every time... hillary? she will get more votes for a GOP than most GOPs can garner dude, and it is because she is an extremist in her own right
90% of Americans are not "for" htese laws being passed.. that 90% may very well be for background checks at guns hows (i am) but we are against the notion of the lawman being able to come round and make you prove you got "checked" to own your gun unless you are in clear violation of a crime...
it's like seatblet laws.. fisrt they couldn't stop you just for that, then they decided they can stop you just for that and oh BTW they can now search you and your stuff and your car for anything and everything if they say you had your seatbelt off --whether you did or not... ehihc happens more than you want to belive even under Obama
and stop with trying to make it out that i feel self-important about my opinion too, cuz i actually know that they are worth exactly what i charge for them...
LOL... sheesh...
Posted by raybond on :
I have never seen a post so long winded that has really said very little. I am really glad that you and buck voted for Obama like I really care. To me you and buck don't seem that rugged nor do you seem that individualist but you are free to your opinion. Don't worry about the police they can handle themselves. More and more every day you seem to inhale on the glass pipe to much.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: I have never seen a post so long winded that has really said very little. I am really glad that you and buck voted for Obama like I really care. To me you and buck don't seem that rugged nor do you seem that individualist but you are free to your opinion. Don't worry about the police they can handle themselves. More and more every day you seem to inhale on the glass pipe to much.
LOL... you are very weak at insults and your memory is weaker... The glass pipe? i am a glass blower but i don't make pipes. My pipe are 4 feet long and made of stainless steel. I do have a couple briars and meershaum for Full Virgina Flake or Captain Black, but i set them aside for my health.
i have posted 35,000 posts here under one name and one name only. you have had three or four names for some reason- no big deal to me, you can post under 100 names if you want.. yeah, i remebr all that without going back to the hardrive...
i've chewed up and spit out dozens with much more skill and brains than you. I have chosen to take it easy on you for my own reasons, and you won't change my reasons for that by trying to be a tough guy. you ain't
as to worrying about the police? they are just people with the same flaws as everyone else i do not worry about them. what i do worry about is how many Americans expect the police to be their first line of defense at all times. that is how you end up in a police state, and you seem to think that is OK.
did you know that 1 in 28 kids in America has a parent in jail now? it's become so bad that the muppets now have a character with a parent in jail. how do you like that mr warden? does it make you proud to be an American? is this a greet country or jsut a big giant penitentiary? almost one percent of the people in jail? and for what? not being a bank executive when they steal? or broker? not even theft for the most part, it's OK to steal here if you do it behind a desk ain't it?
you know we have empty federal detention space in this country that can house maybe another quarter million in tough times? all built in the last decade? you were in some business there. looks like a racket more an more very day
Posted by glassman on :
can you find the rugged individualist in this picture? Posted by glassman on :
this quote is form a demnocratsenator about 7 years ago- yet the democrats now thatthey are back in a position of power are just he opposite...
“It means that there’s some growing concern on Capitol Hill about a program which seems to be so totally unauthorized and unexplained…The president wraps himself in the law, saying that it is totally legal, but he doesn’t give what the legal basis is for this. He avoided using the law, which we provided to the president, where even when there is an emergency and there’s a need for urgent action can first tap the wire and then go to a court.”
don't follow the Judas Goat
Posted by glassman on :
ray did thinkprogress comment on this? or are they pretending it didn't happen?
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House of Representatives voted again Thursday to allow the indefinite military detention of Americans, blocking an amendment that would have barred the possibility.
Congress wrote that authority into law in the National Defense Authorization Act two years ago, prompting outrage from civil libertarians on the left and right. President Barack Obama signed the measure, but insisted his administration would never use it.
Supporters of detention argue that the nation needs to be able to arrest and jail suspected terrorists without trial, including Americans on U.S. soil, for as long as there is a war on terror. Their argument won, and the measure was defeated by a vote of 200 to 226.
But opponents, among them the Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who offered the amendment to end that authority, argued that such detention is a stain on the Constitution that unnecessarily militarizes U.S. law enforcement.
one of the main reasons i was willing to vote for Obama was cuz he (once) was a Constitutional Law scholar and Professer... yeah once upon a time he ws anyway....
Posted by glassman on :
Seventy-two killed resisting gun confiscation in Boston
BOSTON National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.
One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily." Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington 's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.
Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units.
Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.
Posted by Pagan on :
Do you actually have a point? That was a foreign power exerting control over colonies. It was pre-US Constitution. Are you really trying to equate that to background checks and gun control of today? If so, you're even way more far gone than I had thought. And here I thought Cowchit was a troll. He ain't got nothing on you! Obviously the fleas don't fall far from the dog with you and Cowchit!
Posted by raybond on :
One of my favorites is the gun fight at ok corral. The cowboys as they called themselves had there differences with the Eraps but the main reason for the fight was they would not disarm and check there guns in. As per the new city ordnance. The result was a gunfight over the new law. The cowboys lost and were all killed. As a result they did not have to check there guns in.
Posted by rounder1 on :
I believe the point is that even though at the time many considered them the lunatic fringe they are now regarded as founders and heros of the republic.
History is written by the winners. To be a winner you have to believe in something and stand for it either through force or perhaps just through debate or what have you.
More to the point. I think what he may be saying is that if it were not for people willing to challenge authority when it becomes overbearing then you would still be a subject of the crown...
But I could be wrong....he may not have meant that at all.....
Posted by raybond on :
Your a sheep glass you are a nonconformist at best. the only trouble with that, you are conforming with a bunch of other nonconformist nation wide that call yourselves rugged individualist so you are conforming to something like a bunch of screwballs that are getting more and more paranoid you are talking yourselves into a heap of trouble. I do suggest one thing to you no matter how guns rights turn out is that you do what I will do obey the law.
Ps excuse me don't inhale on the stainless steel tube to much.
Posted by buckstalker on :
Not positive here but I believe that is exactly the point Glass was trying to convey...and if so, he is spot on.
It appears to me that Pagan has some deep seated anger issues towards anyone that thinks differently than he/she does...
I am fairly certain that some long term counseling would help him/her with those issues...
Ray on the other hand, is beyond repair...you just cant fix stupid...
quote:Originally posted by rounder1: I believe the point is that even though at the time many considered them the lunatic fringe they are now regarded as founders and heros of the republic.
History is written by the winners. To be a winner you have to believe in something and stand for it either through force or perhaps just through debate or what have you.
More to the point. I think what he may be saying is that if it were not for people willing to challenge authority when it becomes overbearing then you would still be a subject of the crown...
But I could be wrong....he may not have meant that at all.....
Posted by glassman on :
i'm positive you are correct buck, the basic menatliy being displayed here is agree with me or i'll hold my breath and call you childish names...
it's funny cuz as long as i was critisizing bush? these two tripped over themsleves to agree with me but now that i am simply (again) stating my displeasure with the powers that be? i'm a stupid crakhed or somethign along those line.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: Your a sheep glass you are a nonconformist at best. the only trouble with that, you are conforming with a bunch of other nonconformist nation wide that call yourselves rugged individualist so you are conforming to something like a bunch of screwballs that are getting more and more paranoid you are talking yourselves into a heap of trouble. I do suggest one thing to you no matter how guns rights turn out is that you do what I will do obey the law.
Ps excuse me don't inhale on the stainless steel tube to much.
Bond, very few people have the intestianl fortitude to take a 48 inch peice of steel in their hands and stick it into a couple hundred pound crucible full of 2200 degree molten glass, (it's a little warm that close) i not only do that but i then proceed to perform acts of creation with hit, i have nothing to prove to you or explain to you about myself. i do it because i choose to.
as to talking myself into a heap of trouble? it sure sounds like you want to give me some... sad really...
just remaber this i'm not a gun nut, i was a gunner in the USN that's wher e i learned this "gun chit" and i took an oath then to defend the Constitution, not the president, not the Senators, not the Congressmen not you, the Constitution. you would do well to remember that.
the Constituion says i can talk too, i can express my displeasure about laws and the politicians. i have made no threats to anyone and i don't call people names.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Pagan: Do you actually have a point? That was a foreign power exerting control over colonies. It was pre-US Constitution. Are you really trying to equate that to background checks and gun control of today? If so, you're even way more far gone than I had thought. And here I thought Cowchit was a troll. He ain't got nothing on you! Obviously the fleas don't fall far from the dog with you and Cowchit!
Pagan, you uh, are suposed to contemplate the notion... that is all.. read it agin... it s simply a mental exersize to open your mind, nothing more.
it was NOT a foreign power, the taxes being raised wer to pay for defending the colonists in the French and Indian wars, which was VERY expensive, and where George Washingotn got his military training as an officer fighting with the British...... but hten you knew that right cuz everybody knows that form history class right? LOL
BTW? Hancokc already had a bounty his head BEFORE that fro smuggling... he would have hanged if they caught him, but he hid amongst the Revolutionaries- this was not a matter of "perspective" or a "foreegn power. The colonies did enjoy some benefits being British Colonies, and many Colonists did not want to revolt... Just like many Americans did not want to attack Germnany even after the Japaness hit pearl... the Emperor screwd up big time by dong that... Germany prolly would have been able to keep most of wetern europe if the Japanese hadn't drawn US in...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by rounder1: I believe the point is that even though at the time many considered them the lunatic fringe they are now regarded as founders and heros of the republic.
History is written by the winners. To be a winner you have to believe in something and stand for it either through force or perhaps just through debate or what have you.
More to the point. I think what he may be saying is that if it were not for people willing to challenge authority when it becomes overbearing then you would still be a subject of the crown...
But I could be wrong....he may not have meant that at all.....
that's a large part of it, but what really gets me riled is when people refuse to question the people they have voted for themselves. i get it when you don't vote for soembody, but just be cause you voted for soembody? they don't get a blank check. That is why they set up regular elections, and checks and balances. the two parties arenot even that differnt. they pick a couple of things to publicly squable over but they are sharing and dividing up the spoils behind closed doors..
how many bankers has Obama prosecuted? any?
Posted by raybond on :
As for causing you a heap of trouble glass look to some one else not me I would say yourself. As for me I would be crazy to start a war you could get me in much more trouble than I you. And no one is taking you right to free speech. remember that is what you do in trying to restrict posts
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: As for causing you a heap of trouble glass look to some one else not me I would say yourself. As for me I would be crazy to start a war you could get me in much more trouble than I you. And no one is taking you right to free speech. remember that is what you do in trying to restrict posts
"restrict posts"? bond, you are letting your imagination run awy with you now. i haven't touched any of the modrator buttons in YEARS. and then it was to delete porno. th eidea bieng that if you are in your living romm and on allstocks, you would not have to hide it form your kids or your spouse for crissakes...
i prolly just won't be repsondng to you ferahwile basically because you seem to be unable to unerstn what i say to ya.. better for everybody, and it's out of respect not bittenress or anger...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
