Why we will win against new gun control legislation

[razorback2003]

The key will be if the House Speaker will let a gun control bill come out of committee. He can make or break any bill just like Reid can in the Senate. Obama, Democratic Senate, and all their supporters can desire a law, but if it won't be voted on in the House, it doesn't become law.

I'm of the opinion that there will not be a floor vote in the House. I hope I am right because House reps are voted every two years and they spend half their term campaigning.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I expect that all transfers will have to go through an FFL with a background check.
If it's cheap and quick it should pass constitutional muster.

 

[Warp]

I expect that all transfers will have to go through an FFL with a background check.
If it's cheap and quick it should pass constitutional muster.

How is telling me that I cannot sell a gun to my buddy (we both live in GA, are both Weapon Carry License holders) without getting a 'mommy may I' permission slip...complete with records of the transaction...from the government not an infringement?

 

[bushmaster1313]

How is telling me that I cannot sell a gun to my buddy (we both live in GA, are both Weapon Carry License holders) without getting a 'mommy may I' permission slip...complete with records of the transaction...from the government not an infringement?

As a seller you di not even have a dig in the fight.

Currently, all interstate salesian go through an FFL with a NICS check.
Making it apply to in state sales is no big deal.

Also, a NICS check is a minor inconvenience that furthers a compelling government interest, keeping guns away from the certifiably insane, etc.

Nothing is going to stop your friend from keeping and bearing arms, unless he would fail a NICS check.

On a different note. If it is unconstitutional to require voter ID it is probably unconstitutional to charge A big fee for a NICS check or to require a photo ID.

My two cents

 

[HoosierQ]

I see a golden future either way, being either we dont have any new gun laws and restrictions, or we go into a civil war with a 1991 soviet union style attack on the white house but with the occupants losing in this one. Either one im fine with.... i like the sound of being able to fly my Bars n stars

This crap is not helpful. Your post make you sound exactly like the kind of gun nut people are afraid of...a real dangerous nut case. You may not be such a person but you sure sound like one. Grow up.

 

[General Geoff]

Also, a NICS check is a minor inconvenience that furthers a compelling government interest, keeping guns away from the certifiably insane, etc.

Can you prove that NICS actually furthers said government interest?


From the crime statistics I've seen, NICS has done nothing but waste taxpayer money and gun buyers' time.

 

[Warp]

As a seller you di not even have a dig in the fight.

Currently, all interstate salesian go through an FFL with a NICS check.
Making it apply to in state sales is no big deal.

Also, a NICS check is a minor inconvenience that furthers a compelling government interest, keeping guns away from the certifiably insane, etc.

Nothing is going to stop your friend from keeping and bearing arms, unless he would fail a NICS check.

On a different note. If it is unconstitutional to require voter ID it is probably unconstitutional to charge A big fee for a NICS check or to require a photo ID.

My two cents

Yes.

Yes, it is.

Also, please tell me more about how a NICS check keeps guns away from the insane

PS: I suggest you look up the definition of the word "infringe", because I don't think that words means what you think it means.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Can you prove that NICS actually furthers said government interest?

I think we agree that there is a compelling interest in keeping guns out of the hands of certain people.

Because the NICS check is narrowly tailored to furthering that compelling interest, I do not think it matters whether there is proof that it has actually succeeded.

This is very different from an outright ban, which seeks to keep guns out of the bad guys hands by making it illegal for anyone to have one.

People who fail to admit the distinction will not be taken seriously in either the Courts or the court of public opinion.

 

[Warp]

I think we agree that there is a compelling interest in keeping guns out of the hands of certain people.

What people?

Because the NICS check is narrowly tailored to furthering that compelling interest, I do not think it matters whether there is proof that it has actually succeeded.

This is very different from an outright ban

Who the heck said anything about an 'outright ban'??

Do I need to post the definition of the word "infringe" for you, or are you going to go look it up yourself eventually?



Your New Jersey is showing.

 

[JohnBiltz]

On the NCIS checks. It would still not be required among people with CCW permits in states that allow that to substitute for a check. I really do not think that will pass but it seems the most likely to be the one that does pass.

 

[NaturalDefensiveRights]

Far as I know, NICS only checks for felony convictions, not whether someone is insane or not. Most felons, incidentally, are not insane, or for that matter, even violent.

 

[Wyndage]

FWIW, I agree with bushmaster. I don't feel especially strongly either way about the so-called "gun show loophole." At the same time, we shouldn't allow the gun prohibitionists to kid themselves that closing said loophole would have prevented Newtown or any other mass shooting I can think of. And closing said loophole makes the Federal government's stance on voter ID laws all the more hypocritical.

That said, go ahead. Close the "gun show loophole." But I'm not willing to give another inch on what firearms law-abiding Americans can and cannot own.

 

[Aceoky]

Certainly OP's assessment is the preferred scenario, and might be correct.

Trouble is, we're lacking hard numbers. Looking around and seeing everything getting bought up and long lines doing it doesn't mean the voice of America has spoken.

It might mean that, or it might mean a statistically small but impassioned subgroup has drastically upped their buying in a short period, and from a man on street perspective it looks like a major groundswell but isn't.

What would be encouraging is if we had numbers indicating that large swathes of the population that otherwise were casually or entirely uninvolved in gun ownership were suddenly availing themselves. Better still if their political concern and involvement could be gauged.

As it stands, we're a bit of an echo chamber.

State and Total NICS checks for 2012:

States with over 1,000,000 background checks in Bold.
Alabama 431,356
Alaska 85,342
Arizona 339,663
Arkansas 246,193
California 1,132,603
Colorado 414,838
Connecticut 237,496
Delaware 30,724
District of Columbia 449
Florida 834,319
Georgia 465,560
Guam 930
Hawaii 17,428
Idaho 136,482
Illinois 1,036,061
Indiana 475,607
Iowa 147,700
Kansas 210,972
Kentucky 2,589,358
Louisiana 326,290
Maine 91,834
Mariana Islands 5
Maryland 136,604
Massachusetts 210,453
Michigan 430,405
Minnesota 440,992
Mississippi 222,297
Missouri 513,303
Montana 134,455
Nebraska 85,860
Nevada 146,363
New Hampshire 128,178
New Jersey 85,851
New Mexico 143,419
New York 338,619
North Carolina 489,307
North Dakota 84,867
Ohio 629,215
Oklahoma 367,976
Oregon 267,041
Pennsylvania 968,534
Puerto Rico 15,545
Rhode Island 24,050
South Carolina 308,408
South Dakota 88,447
Tennessee 524,122
Texas 1,436,132
Utah 230,999
Vermont 34,507
Virgin Islands 399
Virginia 448,754
Washington 519,209
West Virginia 225,580
Wisconsin 469,375
Wyoming 63,356

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/03/th...#ixzz2H4iEAAno

 

[Old Fuff]

Cruise:

Understand that "closing the loophole" (if the courts don't knock it down because no interstate transaction is involved) will mean that all sales will have to go through an FFL dealer. Under the law, unlicensed individuals cannot make background checks, just dealers. This will likely add to the cost of such transactions, and likely move private sellers and buyers to alternative locations. Prohibited Persons would be delighted because there would be far less chance of being detected. The next step would be to require that ALL private sales and other transactions be made through dealers.

Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.

 

[Wyndage]

Yeah, I get it, and I'm certainly not wishing for it, but this just isn't a bullet issue for me (meaning a principle I'd be willing to take a bullet for). Restrictions on ownership are a different issue.

I'd also point out to the gun prohibitionists that in the early 90's, the ATF shut down 60% of the country's FFL holders for being "kitchen table" operations. If the gun banners really want more background checks on "private" sales, maybe they should join us in reversing this short-sighted decision.

 

[Old Fuff]

Restrictions on ownership are a different issue.

Does you think that once they have a database on private (that won't be private aanymore) sales as well as those made by dealers (who in theory will be making ALL the legal sales or other transfers) they won't go to the next step and start putting restrictions and conditions on ownership?

If so I got some prime desert property I'd love to sell ya.

The people we are up against go one step at a time and never give up. I know because I've been fighting them since 1963. You give them an inch and they'll try for a mile. :banghead:

 

[Killian]

Ah...so the discussion already shows here that even gun owners are not united in their viewpoints.

And we are going to "win" amongst a body of men and women like Congress? With it's myriad interests, viewpoints, regional preferences and shifting demographics? Good luck with it.

 

[bushmaster1313]

What people?

For a start, persons convicted of a violent felony with a firearm.

Can we not agree that there are some people who should not have access to firearms?

 

[Warp]

Ah...so the discussion already shows here that even gun owners are not united in their viewpoints.

And we are going to "win" amongst a body of men and women like Congress? With it's myriad interests, viewpoints, regional preferences and shifting demographics? Good luck with it.

And Congress (even if you only look at one party) has a united viewpoint?

 

[Killian]

Actually I can't agree on that. I believe in the Constitution as being a worthy document. So no, I can't agree.

Only for the duration of someone's incarceration should they be barred from having firearms. The second they leave jail, all rights should be restored. Or, re-recognized, I should say.

 

[bushmaster1313]

The second they leave jail, all rights should be restored.

Charles Manson comes up for parale every so often.
If paroled he gets a gun?

 

[Killian]

And Congress (even if you only look at one party) has a united viewpoint

No, but that's my point. We see "Democrats" and "Republicans" and expect them to vote along party lines. Sometimes they do. But on issues like this we can not assume a "win" because there are numerically more Republicans in the House than Democrats. A lot of those Republicans may agree that gun control, in part, is a good idea.

We can't even get a bunch of guys who own firearms and share that as a commonality to agree on a proper course of action. Or inaction, which is more preferable.

 

[Killian]

Bushmaster...
Yes. They should. IF they have met the requirements that society says is a punishment. Punish them (in my opinion, death would have been a proper punishment) then release them with their rights restored. Give other people in their neighborhood the same right to carry guns. If Manson wishes to show out--other than appearing at weird TV show venues and promoting his anciently old vision of the world--then let him do so against armed citizens around him.

Edit: In my opinion what Charles Manson did warranted the highest punishment, given that he help organize the murder of others. But if he were to be paroled, his crimes judged to be "paid for", then recognize that he has "paid his debt". Vote. Pay taxes. Own guns.

 

[Warp]

Charles Manson comes up for parale every so often.
If paroled he gets a gun?

If he gets paroled he gets his rights restored, and that means he can buy a gun, yes, absolutely.

If he has proven himself too dangerous to have a gun, the has proven himself too dangerous to be free in society, and should not be paroled.

It really is that simple, folks...and pretending that telling him he cannot have a gun will work is about as asinine as pretending that proclaiming a school zone is "gun free", simply because you say so, works.

 

[jerkface11]

For a start, persons convicted of a violent felony with a firearm.

We already have that law it doesn't seem to work though....