Executive Order background checks

[spence]

Please stop the sanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Please stop the sanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bigger government and more regulations fixes everything . We all know Bubba at the gun shows is the problem with gun violence in America . Brilliant !!
Brought to you by good people that brought you Operation Fast and Furious
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

AND THESES Steps ARE A BAD THING ?? Please explain how any of theses are bad and restrict your 2A rights?

and please no talking points from your inbox


All sellers must be licensed and conduct background checks, overturning current exemptions to some online and gun show sellers
States must provide information on people disqualified due to mental illness or domestic violence
FBI will increase workforce processing background checks by 50%, hiring more than 230 new examiners
Congress will be asked to invest $500m (£339m) to improve access to mental healthcare
The departments of defence, justice and homeland security will explore "smart gun technology" to improve gun safety

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

AND THESES Steps ARE A BAD THING ?? Please explain how any of theses are bad and restrict your 2A rights?

and please no talking points from your inbox


1All sellers must be licensed and conduct background checks, overturning current exemptions to some online and gun show sellers
2States must provide information on people disqualified due to mental illness or domestic violence
3FBI will increase workforce processing background checks by 50%, hiring more than 230 new examiners
4Congress will be asked to invest $500m (£339m) to improve access to mental healthcare
5The departments of defence, justice and homeland security will explore "smart gun technology" to improve gun safety

The main policy would not have stopped any recent mass shootings.

225 years of precedent, destroyed–without any legislative due process.
The expansion of background checks is an affront to freedom in general, because it brings private sellers under the purview of the government regardless of whether those sellers sell one gun a year or 100. Americans have been selling guns privately since 1791–that’s 225 years–and now, with a swipe of his pen, Obama is saying a portion of those sales must be handled federally and conducted via background checks.

This is a not-so-subtle slide toward universal background checks–the kind of background checks they have in California and France–and it will eventually require a gun registry database in order to be enforceable–like the registry they have in France and the one they are building in California.
Sounds bad to me.


You can be denied a gun for purely financial reasons or if you are on Social Security.

Sounds horribly bad


It adds more burdens to gun dealers who are already following the law.
This doesn't affect me because we already have it in Mass.


Nobody wants smart guns, they are unreliable and not proven. Bad idea, very bad idea



so stick with the laws we have
If the individual states can legally add laws to have better background checks, then that is a whole other story

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by buckman

Bigger government and more regulations fixes everything . We all know Bubba at the gun shows is the problem with gun violence in America . Brilliant !!
Brought to you by good people that brought you Operation Fast and Furious
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your sure dont have many ideas on how to fix the gun problem or are unwilling to admit there is one .. seem you just regurgitate what the NRA tell's you say.. I understand See no evil speak no evil hear no evil

If gun owners got behind some of this common sense stuff and many do.. they get drowned out by the extremes and the Money it would be a Huge PR win But they would rather have the armed guys in oregon be their Flag bearers on 2A rights they do more damage to your cause the then Pres Obama .. And how are things going to change when hes out of office ??? Gun Makers have had a banner few year with no gun law changes .. Sadly Conservatives are the party of Fear

[buckman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

your sure dont have many ideas on how to fix the gun problem or are unwilling to admit there is one .. seem you just regurgitate what the NRA tell's you say.. I understand See no evil speak no evil hear no evil

If gun owners got behind some of this common sense stuff and many do.. they get drowned out by the extremes and the Money it would be a Huge PR win But they would rather have the armed guys in oregon be their Flag bearers on 2A rights they do more damage to your cause the then Pres Obama .. And how are things going to change when hes out of office ??? Gun Makers have had a banner few year with no gun law changes .. Sadly Conservatives are the party of Fear

I have no idea what the NRA says .
Why don't you explain to me why under the Obama administration gun violation prosecutions have seen such a significant drop ? Seeing how he has been the best thing for gun sales and probably personally responsible for more guns being sold in the last 7 years , I would think we would be using the laws that are already on the books to there fullest . Do you have a problem with or even understand how many laws there already are ?? It appears he's only interested in going after the gpod guys.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Why don't you explain to me why under the Obama administration gun violation prosecutions have seen such a significant drop ?

I looked into this and it doesn't look like it's really that significant.

Federal weapons prosecutions are still very high under Obama compared to the last few decades. They did spike a few years after 9/11 but declined steadily under Bush and under Obama have sort of leveled out. It's also just a single statistic that without context doesn't mean a heck of a lot. You could have a shift towards local and state prosecution for instance that doesn't mean anyone is soft on anything.

I'd rate this one as made up talking point nonsense.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I looked into this and it doesn't look like it's really that significant.

Federal weapons prosecutions are still very high under Obama compared to the last few decades. They did spike a few years after 9/11 but declined steadily under Bush and under Obama have sort of leveled out. It's also just a single statistic that without context doesn't mean a heck of a lot. You could have a shift towards local and state prosecution for instance that doesn't mean anyone is soft on anything.

I'd rate this one as made up talking point nonsense.

BS. I take your last line and throw it back at you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

BS. I take your last line and throw it back at you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's public data, not much to BS.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Please stop the sanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, if I concede that there's no likely constitutional violation to these regulations, can you return the courtesy, and answer a question?

Here it is...let's say 250 get shot in Chicago in an average weekend. If we put these rules in place, how many less shootings can we expect in Chicago in an average weekend, as a direct result of these regulations? 3? 5?

Now, if we can save a few lives and not violate anyone's rights, we should do it.

But what will it take, exactly, for people on your side to agree to have the rest of the conversation that's required if we want to put a real dent in gun violence?

The right doesn't like to upset the NRA by curbing gun sales - that's fact. It's also fact that the left doesn't like to alienate urban blacks by telling them to knock it off, which is exactly what we need to be saying to the people in Chicago. The problem in Chicago isn't that these rules aren't yet law, and the problem obviously isn't white cops. The problem is that our culture is no longer embracing the kinds of values and behaviors that make one less inclined to shoot someone else.

Here's how I know that's true. In places that still embrace those values (or "cling" to them, as your beloved would say), there is very little gun crime.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here it is...let's say 250 get shot in Chicago in an average weekend. If we put these rules in place, how many less shootings can we expect in Chicago in an average weekend, as a direct result of these regulations? 3? 5?

Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

Problem is that if they do choose to confiscate guns like Australia did they destroy them so family heirlooms and collectoins are gone forever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

From Wikipedia:

"There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.


One version was passed by the Congress.[24][25][26][27][28]

As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert:[29]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Playing devil's advocate here - my question is: Where does it say you can sell arms (ie guns)?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Playing devil's advocate here - my question is: Where does it say you can sell arms (ie guns)?

why would it?...read the entire Bill Of Rights...it is a list of restrictions on government and guarantees and protections of individual liberty....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

"Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition"

Agreed. Those guns in circulation will be there for 100 years. Obama's regs will have no real effectr.

Spence, if someone with a bad background decides they want to kill someone, do you really believe these regs will stop him? There are all kinds of ways for people who would fail background checks, to get guns.

"The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid "

Agreed on that.

This is such a small thing, in terms of making us safer. The effect on crime rates will barely be a rounding error.

[Rockport24]

Originally Posted by spence

Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

Why not hire a few hundred more ATF agents and dedicate them to stopping the gun flow into Chicago? Even if they are purchased legally in texas, they are not be transferred legally in Chicago! Why hasn't Obama done this via executive order, which is fully his right to do? No, instead we are going to hire more people to do background checks, the majority of which will be of law-abiding citizens. Why don't we have law enforcement actually go after the known criminal activity?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

Why not hire a few hundred more ATF agents and dedicate them to stopping the gun flow into Chicago? Even if they are purchased legally in texas, they are not be transferred legally in Chicago! Why hasn't Obama done this via executive order, which is fully his right to do? No, instead we are going to hire more people to do background checks, the majority of which will be of law-abiding citizens. Why don't we have law enforcement actually go after the known criminal activity?

Because he doesn't want to put in jail his constituency
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device