Obama plans curbs on guns

[styrgwillidar]

There’s nothing in any of Obama’s proposals would have stopped a single shooting, and Obama knows it. Even if it did, there’s still a cost to Obama’s proposals, that his supporters refuse to consider. I think Obama relies on his supporters not thinking critically about his proposals, knowing that they’ll prefer to embrace the warm glow of moral preening.

I don’t, no more than I think Prohibition ended the consumption of alcohol or that drug criminalization stops the consumption of illegal drugs.

There are a few of his proposals directed at dealing with mental illness, and mental illness has been a factor in most mass shootings. $500 million for mental health treatment-- could be of benefit if directed at the folks at risk. Could be flushed down the toilet of padding existing salaries, contracts to crony companies, and diverted to other uses. Details, details, details

• What is the methodology for identifying at risk folks and ensuring they get treatment?
• Doctor patient interactions do have a high potential for identifying at risk folks. How do we get the at risk people to co-operate and take advantage of treatment early (maybe deal with issues like loss, serious illness, stress before they’re at a stage where rights need to be taken away). Yes, there are privacy issues with medical records, how do we address them?
• Folks have already pointed out they won’t cooperate with a doctor even discussing firearms out of suspicion of the doctors beliefs motives, As well as the lack of due process if they do agree to give up their firearms while undergoing treatment for getting it restored. Details, details, details.

We do need to address mental illness related to gun violence. (yes, there is a lot more violence associated with social factors-- break down of the family in large portions of the population, no fault divorce, absent fathers etc.) If these proposals are a starting point to working out all the details for an acceptable solution- I’m for it.

 

[Theo520]

My basic read is that nothing really changed in this regard. Nor actually could it. Federal firearms law is very specific. There is little wiggle room for an Executive Order.

My understanding is they’ve introduced ambiguity into when someone should have been required to obtain an FTL licenses before conducting their trade/sale. Thus you could be charged with an offense just for selling your dad’s guns after he died. There is no cut-off on the number of transactions between private seller and dealer.

 

[styrgwillidar]

The only thing that irritates me is that I rushed to get two trust based NFA Forms in last month before the orders went into effect and now they’re not going to start until about June. And the CLEO sign off is gone anyway.

I could’ve spread that $400 out into two hits.

The only NFA items I’m interested in are suppressors. I’m hoping the bill working it’s way through to take them off the NFA becomes law. Treat them like the majority of European nations do so the prices become comparable. Just not interested in the extra paperwork fees and inflated prices while they’re NFA items.

Of course, in my jurisdiction any semi-automatic pistol with a detachable magazine and a barrel threaded to accept a suppressor is banned as an “Assault Weapon”. So, I’d be limited to putting them on rifles.

 

[grotto]

Is the Social Security data base going to be used to access Medicare and Medicaid records to allow denial of gun ownership? The IRS has already been revealed to be used as a “strong arm” for political purposes. Obamacare would certainly be another arm to accomplish this invasion of our Consitutional rights.

 

[styrgwillidar]

My understanding is they’ve introduced ambiguity into when someone should have been required to obtain an FTL licenses before conducting their trade/sale. Thus you could be charged with an offense just for selling your dad’s guns after he died. There is no cut-off on the number of transactions between private seller and dealer.

The AG in interviews discussed classifying folks selling just one weapon based on circumstances and mentioned original packaging as being one of the circumstances. Funnily enough (prior to losing them in a boating accident) I kept the original packaging for the couple of firearms as I was told it increased resale value down the road, should I ever want to sell them.

The wording by the ATF (BATFE) hasn’t changed yet. Now, whether they can legally change it as discussed by the AG or whether they’re just trying to serve notice to folks selling as hobbyists that they’ll be tightening interpretations is anybody’s guess.

Of course – the risk is up to a $250K fine, incarceration, loss of civil liberties if you guess wrong about what the interpretation will be about handing down/inheriting/personally selling to friend/relative.

Wouldn’t it be nice if they just made the NICS site available for private sales and required it be used?

 

[Theo520]

The AG in interviews discussed classifying folks selling just one weapon based on circumstances and mentioned original packaging as being one of the circumstances. Funnily enough (prior to losing them in a boating accident) I kept the original packaging for the couple of firearms as I was told it increased resale value down the road, should I ever want to sell them.

The wording by the ATF (BATFE) hasn’t changed yet. Now, whether they can legally change it as discussed by the AG or whether they’re just trying to serve notice to folks selling as hobbyists that they’ll be tightening interpretations is anybody’s guess.

Of course – the risk is up to a $250K fine, incarceration, loss of civil liberties if you guess wrong about what the interpretation will be about handing down/inheriting/personally selling to friend/relative.

Wouldn’t it be nice if they just made the NICS site available for private sales and required it be used?

They only seem to enforce such regs when they feel vindictive and want to punish someone, like the guy charged with a strawman purchase for buying a gift for his dad. Otherwise I’ve never heard of them charging people supplying criminals with a strawman purchase.

 

[styrgwillidar]

They only seem to enforce such regs when they feel vindictive and want to punish someone, like the guy charged with a strawman purchase for buying a gift for his dad. Otherwise I’ve never heard of them charging people supplying criminals with a strawman purchase.

It infuriates some of my relatives and friends in law enforcement. Just the number of gun law violations that get dropped during the plea bargains. DA’s in their jurisdictions just seem to want to use dropping those charges as the inducement to pleading guilty to other charges when, in the opinion of the officers, they’re the charges with the strongest evidence. Not a lawyer, so not sure what the other side of the story is from the DA’s perspective.

 

[Sy_Noe]

There are a few of his proposals directed at dealing with mental illness, and mental illness has been a factor in most mass shootings. $500 million for mental health treatment–

Now we await for Republicans to put money where there mouth is.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Is attempting what is known to be ineffective ‘trying’

Which is why we seek effective means.

You don’t know that one person’s life might not be saved or that a mass shooting in the future might not occur. So yes to me it is very much worth trying.

So now you’re saying you’re not trying to defund PP or shutdown PP or otherwise make it more difficult for women to obtain an abortion unless they have the means to travel to another state where they could obtain one, and still not trying to overturn the Constitutional right in which the SCOTUS found over 4 decades ago that women have a constitutional right to privacy under the 14th amendment and an abortion in the first trimester with state restrictions subsequently allowed?

 

[Brendan]

My understanding is they’ve introduced ambiguity into when someone should have been required to obtain an FTL licenses before conducting their trade/sale. Thus you could be charged with an offense just for selling your dad’s guns after he died. There is no cut-off on the number of transactions between private seller and dealer.

A variant of that was specifically mentioned in the ATF document that I linked to. An auctioneer at an estate sale does not require an FFL, and thus would not need to conduct background checks.

that was the only clarification

A person who received them of a Will or estate does not, that part is already law. They simply sign a form that they are legally able to possess the firearms in their State. At that point, they become part of that person’s personal collection.

And a person selling from their personal collection ( no limit) is not required to maintain an FFL.

This is already law, and nothing Obama released has the ability to change that.

This part is already governed by law, and the ATF cannot change that.

The statement that one firearm sale resulting in a need for an FFL is already case law.

If a person takes an order for a firearm, acquires it and resells it to fulfil the order is engaging as a dealer. That part has already been determined by the courts.

So far, I have seen nothing that indicates any change in who is, and who is not, a firearms dealer that requires a license.

 

[GaryTaylor]

When something is not intrinsically evil [abortion], there is room for prudential judgment. In other words, we weigh the positive and negative effects to determine whether or not something is good.

ncregister.com/daily-news/guns-vs.-gun-control

 

[ARSpade]

My understanding is they’ve introduced ambiguity into when someone should have been required to obtain an FTL licenses before conducting their trade/sale. Thus you could be charged with an offense just for selling your dad’s guns after he died. There is no cut-off on the number of transactions between private seller and dealer.

There’s no cut off but the actual law is pretty clear about what “engaged in business” is defined as.

Obama and the AG are just trying to scare people into doing what they want.

 

[Abynissa]

I believe that gun shops and their owners that require an FFL in the business of selling and buying guns are at an severe disadvantage compared to those who can sell guns at a show or to another private individual without conducting a background check first. Why should their business be impeded? Requiring background checks is supported by the majority of Americans. It also perserves the chain of evidence to track indviduals who commit crimes. It is well with the regulatory laws that currently exist and is Constitutionally valid. Except the NRA will use this as a propaganda piece to add more money to their coffers. It will hold sellers to civil tort laws for violations. It will prevent buyer who has a history of mental health, felons, and those committing domestic violence from obtaining these weapons. I believe that is reasonable and not a knee jerk response.

The people committing murders with a gun do not have a mental health issue. That’s a straw man argument. Mental health therapy hasn’t increase the well being of individuals in this country. It’s only getting worse. There are more anti-depressants being prescribed then at any time in the history of Amercia and more people are depressed. Scientific bio-medical research has proven there is no direct link to low serotin levels and depression. Any research is bogus that supports it. Most murders occur in the heat of passion among people they know. I believe 80% Justice Dept.

So they want to through away $500 million taxpayer’s money at problem that will be totally useless? Give me a break! The APA lobbyist’s are at work to cash in. I wonder who they are in league with?

Is the Gov. of Texas threatening the President with his tweet? He is required to uphold the U.S. Constitution in his oath of office.

 

[minion]

Maybe Obama should implement scissor and vacuum control, considering the millions of unborn babies murdered by his abortion legislation.

 

[ARSpade]

It infuriates some of my relatives and friends in law enforcement. Just the number of gun law violations that get dropped during the plea bargains. DA’s in their jurisdictions just seem to want to use dropping those charges as the inducement to pleading guilty to other charges when, in the opinion of the officers, they’re the charges with the strongest evidence. Not a lawyer, so not sure what the other side of the story is from the DA’s perspective.

There’s this one: ketv.com/news/woman-who-supplied-weapon-that-killed-officer-orozco-given-probation/36238062

A judge sentenced Jalita Johnson to a year’s probation, 180 days of home confinement and community service.

Federal prosecutors say Johnson in April bought a Glock semiautomatic gun, a 50-round drum magazine and ammunition from a pawnshop.

Johnson wrote on the purchase form that she was buying the gun for herself. She later admitted she was buying it on behalf of her boyfriend Marcus Wheeler, a convicted felon.

Police in Omaha say Wheeler killed Orozco on May 20 when he opened fire on officers trying to arrest him. Wheeler was killed when another officer returned fire.

She should have served 10 years in federal prison for lying on a 4473. But what we need are MORE LAWS that the government will also continue to not enforce against certain people.

 

[Brendan]

You don’t know that one person’s life might not be saved or that a mass shooting in the future might not occur. So yes to me it is very much worth trying.[/qutoe]

Perhaps wearing purple socks could prevent a mass shooting? If the President mandated the wearing of purples socks in order to reduce firearms fatalities and called on Congress to pull money from other programs to hire FBI agents to dispense purple socks. Would you applaud, as there is a CHANCE that the purple socks might distract a shooter, and thereby save a life? Or would you consider it to be a useless gesture and a waste of time and money?

So now you’re saying you’re not trying to defund PP or shutdown PP or otherwise make it more difficult for women to obtain an abortion unless they have the means to travel to another state where they could obtain one, and still not trying to overturn the Constitutional right in which the SCOTUS found over 4 decades ago that women have a constitutional right to privacy under the 14th amendment and an abortion in the first trimester with state restrictions subsequently allowed?

 

[Abynissa]

Federal prosecutors say Johnson in April bought a Glock semiautomatic gun, a 50-round drum magazine and ammunition from a pawnshop.

What? How can you fit a 50-round drum magazine on a Glock semiautomatic gun. The weight alone…?

 

[JonNC]

=Sy Noe;13559379]As the President said, we can not prevent every shooting. But that doesn’t mean we don’t try to prevent even one.

And the president’s action yesterday does virtually nothing to prevent a single shooting.

If conservatives think gun legislation won’t stop all criminals,

why would anybody think they would?

why would you think closing Planned Parenthood and overturning the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Roe v Wade would stop all abortions?

Congress lacks the power to close PP sites. What true conservatives want to do is get the government to abide by the constitution, which means no funding at all for PP. There is no constitutional mandate for funding PP.
As for overturning Roe v. Wade, it won’t be overturned, but your point is an interesting one. Even though the Heller case and the MacDonald case confirm without a doubt that the 2nd amendment speaks of an individual right to keep and bear arms, some progressive members of the Illinois legislature missed the message, and are asking the courts, including the SCOTUS, to reinterpret the second amendment:

RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
21 NINETY-NINTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we
22 urge the courts, especially the United States Supreme Court, to
23 restore interpretation of the Second Amendment as a right
1 afforded to state-sponsored militias that as Justice Stevens
2 stated in his Heller dissent, " … it does not curtail the
3 Legislature’s power to regulate the non-military use and
4 ownership of weapons … ".

Highlighting is mine. Note, Justice Steven’s dissent. IOW, he disagreed with the court’s
determination - again! - that the right is an individual right, not a government right, which, by the way, is an oxymoron, since governments do not have rights, but only powers.

Over and over and over again, we see progressives trying to undermine this basic civil and human right, which is antecedent to government power and protected by the Bill of Rights. It is happening again in California right now.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The justification used by tyrants worldwide. If we can save just ONE life, then taking away your freedoms is worth it!

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

And will likely not get either.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

You don’t know that one person’s life might not be saved or that a mass shooting in the future might not occur. So yes to me it is very much worth trying.

So now you’re saying you’re not trying to defund PP or shutdown PP or otherwise make it more difficult for women to obtain an abortion unless they have the means to travel to another state where they could obtain one, and still not trying to overturn the Constitutional right in which the SCOTUS found over 4 decades ago that women have a constitutional right to privacy under the 14th amendment and an abortion in the first trimester with state restrictions subsequently allowed?

Defunding is not the same as shutting down. They raise millions of dollars on their own. Let the Hollywood elites fund it, since they are in favor of it. Further, I thought PP said they don’t use federal money for abortion. Are they lying about this, too?

Women have a right to an abortion, according to Roe v Wade, but they do not have the right to anyone else’s money to access that right, just like I do not have a right to someone else’s money to buy a gun. Rights are not provided for by the taxpayer, by government, other than a right to an attorney for a defendant in a criminal case.

As for restrictions in the first trimester, I think everyone should be in favor of common sense abortion control… After all, if we could save just one life, wouldn’t that be worth it?

Jon