What new gun control laws do you see being proposed?


PDA






answerguy
April 18, 2007, 10:47 AM
Obviously it will happen because of this latest tragedy. Some like renewing the AWB and closing the guns show 'loophole' have no connection to the recent events. Magazine capacity may be one proposed and at least have a connection to the crime. How about making selling guns to non US citizens illegal? Do you think that may happen?

If you enjoyed reading about "What new gun control laws do you see being proposed?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dan from MI
April 18, 2007, 10:49 AM
I expect a ban on all non citizens from owing firearms. That will pass easily. I'm most concerned about gun shows, AWB, and magazine bans.

PILMAN
April 18, 2007, 10:50 AM
I'm sure there will be lots of bans not even related to the situation.

I see some very heavy restrictions on handguns (doubt they will be banned completely), prices on 9mm may raise or taxes on the ammo. They may require background checks and FFL to buy ammo.

Magazine cap ban, 10 rounds or less.

Assault weapon ban

Gun show loophole will likely be closed and those wanting to do face to face deals will likely have to go through FFL

there could be longer waiting periods and 1 gun a month proposed.

That's what I see to be honest with you.

ozwyn
April 18, 2007, 10:51 AM
I am thinking Dan has the best guess there on the citizenship angle. It also plays into immigration fears, so in many areas where such laws might not normally sell it may recieve backing.

Battler
April 18, 2007, 10:54 AM
I'm not seeing much of anything, except for the AWB. Rest diluted or forgotten.

Noncitizens is IMHO a dead end. A noncitizen is at max 5 years from being a voting citizen. It's too logistically difficult to make the transition (what do you do with all the guns noncitizens already own?) It'd be hard to make it stick, hard to get real momentum on unless they stick it to something else, then there's the whole "antiimmigrant" angle the kind of people pushing gun control don't really want. Again, a PR is 0-5 years from being a voter. . . .

For someone 14 years on a GC like this kid he was one "I swear allegiance to the flag" away from being a citizen anyway.

With all the extra exclusions (beyond felony) on gun ownership, I believe it's easier to become a US citizen than to buy a gun as it is.

Marshall
April 18, 2007, 10:58 AM
Waiting periods

Limits on numbers

Assualt weapon

strat81
April 18, 2007, 11:02 AM
How about this for a gun control law: If you kill someone with a gun, you will go to jail and have your gun taken away.

We really need a law like that.

22-rimfire
April 18, 2007, 11:08 AM
I hope there are no new gun laws passed. My expectation is that you will see a multitude of bills considered but especially the revived AWB bill that I believe is in committee. It will be a fight, but it will flush out the presidential candidates as far as their views on firearms legislation. I would not be surprised that Bush would sign a bill reviving the AWB if it passed both the House and Senate. Afterall, prior to the last presidential election, he in fact said just that.

The most worrisome of requirements would be some sort of pyschological testing, national database (registry) of perscription drug use, and a requirement for mental health professionals to provide information to the government relative to the mental worthiness or acceptibility of someone wanting to purchase or own a firearm (especially a handgun). My suspicision is that these professionals will not want the liability of certification and they also tend to lean toward the more liberal side of the political arena. Hence, this will become a pay me or forget buying a firearm kind of thing. This worries me and a requirement that could pass after the VA Tech shootings as being a reasonable approach to limiting ownership of firearms to only sane people.

I do not see any action on a bill making ownership of firearms by legal permanent residents (green card) illegal. These are good people for the most part. There are always wackos in our society and they aren't limited to green card holders. If they are seeking US citizenship, they have a great deal to loose by doing something stupid with regard to firearms.

Maybe we can get CCW reduced from age 21 to 18 so college students can legally carry a firearm. That would be huge change as there are limitations on age now on ownership.

Thumper
April 18, 2007, 11:18 AM
Those of you who believe that new laws will be implemented because of this...I have a quick question: How long have you been in the RKBA fight?

The reason I ask is that the media response to this type of attrocity has changed dramatically in our favor. This is nothing compared to Columbine or Dunblane. Our "hearts and minds" campaign has been working.

I don't mean for anyone to get complacent, but we seem to have a lot of gloom and doomers around these days and I wonder if they were around and aware during the late eighties to mid nineties period.

I think the current makeup of Congress is a bit of a concern, but I really think that most anti representatives have realized that theirs is a lost cause.

We have been absolutely kicking their rears from a legislative and legal standpoint.

MikeH
April 18, 2007, 11:20 AM
With all the extra exclusions (beyond felony) on gun ownership, I believe it's easier to become a US citizen than to buy a gun as it is.

Not really. You need to know some basic facts about US history and political system, demonstrate English speaking, reading, and writing skills, and know who are your president, vice-president, governor, senators and congressmen/women. You also need to get fingerprinted and pass a FBI background check.

Almost forgot, there is a $400 fee.

Battler
April 18, 2007, 11:33 AM
MikeH:

You are correct. I meant the exclusions.

The things that will stop you buying a gun will never really go away. There are all those little addons (child criminal history, etc.) excluding one from gun ownership.

The only irreperable thing I can think of on those other filters is the test - it is possibly to be irreperably mentally impaired so as to be unable to memorize that simple test and still buy a gun.

People bring such laws up such that: "Well, at least this would have stopped the massacre" (at least, try to tell themselves that).

For someone in this kid's position, becoming a citizen vs. not is merely a matter of having a free afternoon to burn at the ceremony.

JLStorm
April 18, 2007, 11:34 AM
A ban on non-citizen ownership will not be imposed because liberals want & need those votes badly. They know they dont have many citizen gun owners votes anyway, so there isnt much loss by taking away gun rights across the board, but if they target aliens, they risk loosing many votes from a group that otherwise favors them.

22-rimfire
April 18, 2007, 11:36 AM
Lets NOT forget the $400 fee. :) But, honestly speaking, how many average citizens know the names of their elected representatives? Some don't even know who the president and vice-president are which is sad.

Rob G
April 18, 2007, 11:36 AM
I've been listening to a lot of the talking heads and I think we might be ahead already in this debate. I've heard people on all the sides of the political spectrum state quite bluntly that new gun control laws would not have done a thing to stop this. I even heard a TV news type ( can't remember his name ) state that he was in favor of allowing people to carry concealed on college campuses because the presence of a CHL holder might have been able to prevent this. Even more astonishing is that his guests agreed with him. As for the anti-gun crowd they're just preaching the same old tired rhetoric. We should not let down our guard but I think people are starting to listen to the truth.

In the meantime try this argument the next time someone says that the existence and easy availability of guns is dangerous:
The shootings in Jonesboro AR, Columbine, Viginia Tech, Austin TX (Charles Whitman, 1966 for those who can't remember that one), and that Salt Lake City Mall (can't remember the name) all happened in places where you can't legally carry a gun and therefore only the criminal was armed. On the reverse side, I don't believe I've ever heard of someone going on a rampage in a gun show despite the fact that "evil" weapons are just lying about everywhere. Coincidence? Not a chance.

Igloodude
April 18, 2007, 11:53 AM
Virginia apparently already has a 1-gun-a-month law, or so the press has reported.

This tragedy is sort of odd as regards gun control - no law that has a realistic chance in hell of passing in Virginia or federally would have prevented anything here. Mag capacities? Sure, but it might have taken him collectively another couple minutes to reload - but the police weren't doing anything effective yet, it would have simply delayed his suicide by a couple minutes.

Presumably the Brady bunch et al will simply push harder on AWBII and other stuff, but it will get opposed (effectively, I think) with "But why? It wouldn't have stopped Cho." Meanwhile previously uninterested people give some thought to Gun-Free Zones and equate them (thanks to the Brady bunch listing previous shootings at schools and other GFZs) to massacres.

I don't see anti-gunners getting a whole lot of traction from this event.

solareclipse
April 18, 2007, 12:08 PM
Nonsense after nonsense.

The guy was admitted to a mental institution. That already violated 4473 in itself. So the fault is with the system for not knowing about it.

I doubt anything will actually come out of this as far as gun agenda is concerned. It a case where no gun law could have prevented it. We've been over this with columbine. If he couldn't have bought them legally, he would have bought them illegally.

And the non citizen ban has no chance in frozen hell in passing if it ever comes to the table. So stop cheering over that since it has been brought up at least 20 times this morning. Getting old real fast and shows how hypocritical people are.

Outlaw Man
April 18, 2007, 12:17 PM
They may require background checks and FFL to buy ammo.
Sounds about right. Pass a law that would have done nothing to prevent the tragedy if it were in place before. You, my friend, have reached very accurately into the mind of an anti-gunner. I am sure there are people considering this, and it may just get proposed.

Excluding non-citizens from buying guns and limiting magazine capacity will most certainly be proposed. I'm not sure how much of a chance it has, but they'll try it.

It's sad that "all men" endowed with "unalienable rights" stops at convenience. And a big portion of this country will support it - even gun owners. That is truely sickening.

SkiLune
April 18, 2007, 12:21 PM
I think the current makeup of Congress is a bit of a concern, but I really think that most anti representatives have realized that theirs is a lost cause.

I concur. When even Harry Reid, and packing Jim Webb (who can't seem to keep track of where he keeps his carry weapon) are pro 2A, only marginal players like Kook-cinich and McCarthy are leading the charge to confiscate guns, and when Hillary and Obamarama carefully avoid mentioning the issue (I guess the focus groups have not yet determined what their positions on 2-A should be), I too come to the conclusion they think it is a lost cause.

But, I don't trust what Hillary/Obamarama or Giuliani would do if elected.

Geno
April 18, 2007, 12:27 PM
Given the new forces from the internet, and informed experts like us, we should push for a new law to have people "enhance" the CCW to permit carrying in "pistol free zones" for those people who have completed at least a "Tactical Shooting" or "Advanced Tactical Shooting" course. Let's face it, carrying in a crowded H.S. is not the same as the mall. The halls are smaller, more numbers in small areas, and more obstacles. It would seem to be a logical extension of the laws we presently have in Michigan.

Doc2005

Evil Monkey
April 18, 2007, 01:37 PM
What's wrong with you guys?

You guys like to be victims of gun control?

STOP GETTING SCARED OVER NOTHING!

If you do your part in the RKBA then nothing will happen. Stop acting like you're defeated.:mad:

Geno
April 18, 2007, 01:44 PM
Give 'em Hades "Evil Monkey"!!!

I just received this e-mail from Gun Sight. I guess great minds think alike!

*******************
Text of e-mail follows:
*******************

For Immediate Release
April 18, 2007

From Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
http://www.frontsight.com
1.800.987.7719

Please Forward to Your Local Newspapers, Radio
Stations, and Television News Stations

Subject: Gun School For Teachers

Las Vegas, Nevada: In the wake of the Virginia Tech
shootings, Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, which
arguably is the world leader in providing intensified
courses in the defensive use of firearms for private
citizens, feels they have the answer to stopping further
attacks on school children. Front Sight is offering free
firearms training to any school administrator, teacher, or
full time staff member designated as school Safety
Monitors. Front Sight will accept for training up to three
staff members from each school, college or university.
Applicants must submit a letter requesting training on
school letterhead signed by the top school district
official and designating the applicant as the school's
Safety Monitor.

Guns and Teachers

Front Sight's Founder and Director, Dr. Ignatius Piazza
understands that his offer may offend some school
administrators and parents who do not see arming and
training selected school staff members as a positive
solution to violent attacks. However, he is quick to point
out that historically, his approach has worked while gun
control has actually increased violent crime by shifting
the balance of power to favor the criminals and lunatics.

"My offer is not a new idea," says Piazza. "In the early
70's, Israel was faced with much greater problems of armed
terrorist attacks on schools. The cry for more gun control
was heard then too, but Israel very carefully analyzed all
possible options before adopting the proactive position of
arming and training their teachers. School shootings
stopped and terrorists looked for easier targets." He
maintains that gun control never has and never will stop
criminals and madmen from carrying out acts of gun
violence.

"In our country, every time a misguided individual on
psychiatric drugs goes on a killing spree, anti-self
defense legislators, watch the polls and exploit the
dead victims in order to fool the public into accepting
more gun control. It is time our country finds some
resolve and the will to tackle the real problem- which is
rooting out the actual influences in the lives of our youth
that predispose them to commit atrocities such as those we
saw at Virginia Tech. The problem is not guns. Guns don't
cause these incidents to occur anymore than cameras cause
child pornography or automobiles cause traffic fatalities.
Israel had the right answer. Society is safer when we train
and arm our law abiding citizens. As the defensive training
leader in the USA, Front Sight is willing and able to set
the example for the rest of the country to follow."

Armed Teachers

Dave Clark, who recently retired after teaching for the
last 25 years at Junction Junior High School in Livermore,
California agrees with Front Sight's philosophy. In fact,
Mr. Clark has previously attended a Four Day Defensive
Handgun course at Front Sight at his own expense and found
the course to be exactly what is needed to train fellow
teachers to stop an attack similar to Columbine school and
Virginia Tech. "Front Sight provides safe and responsible
training to a level that exceeds law enforcement
standards." Says Mr. Clark. "Among the many lessons
taught, I learned universally accepted rules in justifiable
use of deadly force. More importantly, I learned when not
to shoot and how to be more mentally prepared to see a
lethal confrontation coming before it happens in order to
avoid it. The firearms training is second to none and
clearly gives the graduates the skill needed to save the
lives of those in their charge if ever attacked. If my
school district chose to adopt a policy of sending selected
teachers to Front Sight for concealed handgun training, I
would wholeheartedly support it and volunteer as a Safety
Monitor. There is no reason for our children to continue to
be victimized when free, professional training is available
to stop school attacks."

Guns in Schools

There is evidence that a gun in the hand of a teacher will
stop an armed attacker. The vice-principal of a school in
Pearl, Mississippi used his handgun to stop and detain an
armed killer until the police arrived. Dr. Piazza adds, "It
seems obvious that armed and trained staff members inside
the school are in a better position to identify the
attackers and do something immediately to resolve the
situation. It is much harder for police, who arrive on the
scene too late to stop the killing."

Not so convinced is Sharon Piazza, Dr. Piazza's aunt who
recently retired after 30 years as an elementary teacher
and school administrator for Oak Grove School District in
San Jose, California. "The thought of teachers carrying
guns saddens me greatly. I would feel that we had failed
as a society and missed the core reason why violence is
occurring in our youth. It is not guns, but something much
deeper that is the common thread in all these tragedies. If
we must arm individuals in the school setting to protect
our children, I definitely believe they need to be trained
in when and how to use the weapon. However, I am definitely
not one who would want to be armed and would not want to
teach in that setting."

Lawmakers With Blood on Their Hands

Another obstacle to Front Sight's offer to train and arm
teachers is the current law in many states prohibiting the
possession of firearms on school grounds even when the
possessor is qualified and has a concealed weapons license.
Dr. Piazza quickly points out that those laws did not
prevent or stop the gun violence at numerous schools over
the last tens years. He states, "The brazen attacks in
school after school during the last decade indicate
criminals have concluded that 'Gun-Free-School-Zone'
actually means 'Government Certified, Helpless and Unarmed
Victim Zone.'

Case in Point: House Bill 1572 would have given college
students and employees the right to carry a concealed
handgun on campus but this legislation was killed
in subcommittee by the General Assembly. Virginia Tech
spokesman Larry Hincker was happy at the time to hear the
bill had died. Hincker stated, "I'm sure the university
community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions
because this helps parents, students, faculty and visitors
to feel safe on our campus." Mr. Hincker now has rotten egg
on his face and the General Assembly has blood on their
hands.

School administrators, law enforcement agencies,
and legislators can change laws and policies if they truly
want to stop these attacks.

Senator Bob Beers of Nevada had the right answer by
introducing Senate Bill 286 which authorized teachers
who hold permits to carry concealed firearms and who
have completed a specific program of firearms training
to carry concealed on schools grounds. Nevada lawmakers

shot
down Senator Beers' prophetic legislation just one week
before the Virginia Tech Massacre.

The voices of Dr. Ignatius Piazza and Senator Bob Beers
can now be heard through the halls of every school in
America as they scream, "How many more of our children must
be gunned down before this country will wake up and pass
sensible laws that protect our children by placing
concealed guns in the hands of the good guys? No more
free-fire-zones for deranged criminals!"

Schools Can't Afford to Pass on No Cost Security

Most school districts cannot afford to have even one full
time police officer in every school, but they can easily
afford to train three or more of their selected staff
members to a higher level of firearms training than offered
in police academies because Front Sight will provide the
training at no cost."

Retired law enforcement firearms instructor, Mike Waidelich
from Bakersfield, California strongly supports the Front
Sight concept of arming and training teachers. "Nearly
every tragedy on or off school grounds in the entire 30
years of my law enforcement career could have been
prevented or the damage done considerably limited, by the
presence of an armed and trained individual."

Concealed Guns

The training provided in Front Sight's basic training
classes easily exceeds the training provided in most police
basic training academies.

Front Sight proves it on their nationally televised
reality series Front Sight Challenge shown every week
on VERSUS Network. Seasoned law enforcement officers
from around the country go head-to-head in tests of
marksmanship, speed and tactics against private citizens--
including teachers-- who have not received any training
other than Front Sight's firearms courses. Remarkably,
the Front Sight trained, private citizens are currently
leading the series 8 : 5.

Piazza adds, "Teachers will be trained to carry a concealed
weapon, so potential attackers will not know which teachers
are armed and which are not. In states that have adopted
concealed weapon laws for private citizens, violent crime
has dropped. School attacks will drop as well once it is
known that any of the teachers and staff members on school
grounds have the ability and training to stop a violent
attack immediately."

Piazza explains that scientific research also supports
Front Sight's stance on concealed weapon training. He
references researcher, John Lott, Jr. from the University
of Chicago School of Law who published Crime, Deterrence
and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns in July 1996. "Mr.
Lott's research of cross-sectional time-series data from
all 3054 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992 found that
allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent
crime and appears to produce no increase in accidental
deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry
concealed handgun provisions had adopted them in 1992,
approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and over 60,000
aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly."

Gun Control Increases Violent Crime

Piazza asks, "How many times must we experience another
Littleton, Colorado or Virginia Tech before we wake up,
study the research and adopt policies which actually reduce
crime and begin saving our children instead of leaving them
helpless victims when the next psych drug user snaps?"

Gun control typically increases violent crime yet some
politicians continue to tout disarming law abiding citizens
as a solution. Front Sight has a better solution.

School districts interested in taking advantage of Front
Sight's commitment to help protect our children should
call us at 1.800.987.7719 or e-mail Front Sight at
info@frontsight.com. More information about Front Sight
training is available at http://www.frontsight.com."

jpk1md
April 18, 2007, 01:50 PM
There will be significant discussion about what can be done amongst legislators at State and Fed Levels.....

IF we keep writing e-mail/letters and calls to ALL of our elected officials.....nothing is likely to come of this until AFTER the 2008 election.

Past 2008 will depend on who wins POTUS and whether the Commie-Crats maintain their ever so slim majority in Congress.

They ALL remember what happened as a result of AWB I when they lost ~30 seats and their majority in Congress in '94......fear of losing the majority and POTUS is the only thing that keeps them in line.

MD_Willington
April 18, 2007, 01:58 PM
http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070418/UPDATES01/70418013/1002/NEWS01

:rolleyes:

Gallot introduced a similar bill during the 2003 legislative session. The bill died in committee.



I will not mention his "affiliation"....

eliphalet
April 18, 2007, 02:03 PM
Immigrants should not be allowed to own, posses, or buy a firearm. Citizens only, if you want the rights of citizenship become one. Thats my opinion and I am sticking to it.
A nonviolent felon (after a undetermined time period) citizen should have no restrictions. NONE!
A kid that took a car at 16 or was caught with a pocket full of pot at 20 and has been a good boy for several years is no more a danger to society that many of us that are here on this forum.

How much less successful do you believe the shooting incidents of the last several years would have been if guns could be carried by the citizenry as say in Israel? Not nearly as many lives would have been lost, and the Twin Towers would still be standing. IMHO

Tim James
April 18, 2007, 02:04 PM
I would like to see a common-sense ban on .50-caliber crew-served machineguns come out of this situation.

MD_Willington
April 18, 2007, 02:08 PM
eliphalet

Immigrants should not be allowed to own or buy a firearm. Thats my opinion and I am sticking to it. A non felon citizen should have no restrictions. NONE!


I think Oleg may have something to say about that, along with the rest of us immigrants who are actually doing something about your natural born rights that a lot of your fellow born citizens are completely apathetic to...

:cuss:

Marshall
April 18, 2007, 02:21 PM
The original question asked about what laws we think will be proposed, not what we think will pass or what we believe will prevail.

Non US citizens not allowed to purchase firearms? I have no problem with that.

eliphalet
April 18, 2007, 02:40 PM
Non US citizens not allowed to purchase firearms? I have no problem with that.

I don't want to start a argument here and non citizen firearm ownership is a law we may see proposed. I would not be against that. I would not worry about folks from our north but it would need to include all.
MD I am sure you are a fine upstanding person, I don't mean that as a personal attack on anyone in particular but I am going to stand by my earlier statement and say " no firearms until full citizenship". Permits to come and hunt with some provisions should be in place but not outright ownership. Sorry but I feel a line needs to be drawn in the sand so to speak.
I wouldn't expect those right in another country as a non citizen and they should not be allowed here.


NRA life member
Active in local gun club etc.

22-rimfire
April 18, 2007, 06:15 PM
Eliphalet: Not trying to pick on you, but Oleg OWNS this forum and he is an immigrant with a green card. He is a huge supporter of OUR 2A rights and he puts his money where his mouth is. You can listen to him interviewed on the Gun Talk web site from an old show a few weeks ago. Just so you know...

WildeKurt
April 18, 2007, 06:35 PM
Caught a bit of CSPAN today with some senator from NY Dem I believe. She was very 'reasonable.' Looked like she was now aiming at hanguns with high cap mags. (10+) She said that no one should have those as they were developed for the military and LEO. Then she immediatley started back pedalling and saying they might grant exceptions for competitive shooting (could only thing she may have heard of IPSC or IDPA). Me thinks her reasonableness should be very worrisome.

givo08
April 18, 2007, 06:38 PM
I don't want to start a argument here and non citizen firearm ownership is a law we may see proposed. I would not be against that. I would not worry about folks from our north but it would need to include all.
MD I am sure you are a fine upstanding person, I don't mean that as a personal attack on anyone in particular but I am going to stand by my earlier statement and say " no firearms until full citizenship". Permits to come and hunt with some provisions should be in place but not outright ownership. Sorry but I feel a line needs to be drawn in the sand so to speak.
I wouldn't expect those right in another country as a non citizen and they should not be allowed here.

Why should a permanent resident who passes the same background checks and has the same clean record as a citizen not have the right to self defense? :eek:

givo08
April 18, 2007, 06:39 PM
They are saying this kid was declared mentally insane in court in 2005 on NBC news tonight...I wouldn't be surprised if they add more stringent requirements on mental health.

chongfa
April 18, 2007, 06:46 PM
:barf: Dear eliphalet, I guess that you would like to ban one of our moderator Oleg from banning guns.

You are such a hypocrite, I feel sick to my stomach just hearing people like you talk.

The process of becoming an american citizen is not, just simply saying "I want to be an American." three times.

Being stupid is not a crime, so you have very right to make any dumb comment as you like to say and your only repercussion is just making yourself looks stupid.

Why don't you tell this to this hero of mine that only American citizen can carry guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liviu_Librescu

I know that it will not make you any less ignorant, but I am just sick of hearing stupid craps from hypocrite like you.

By the way this is the SECOND AMENDMENT. In case you have forgotten hte message and try to distort it just like any typical anti-gun people would.

"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."

Our forefathers believe these are inalienable rights to all mankind. What part of it said "only American citizen could".

I am sorry for my rants, but some of the hypocritical things from hypocritical people just pissed me off. There are just too many of them.

kmtirish
April 18, 2007, 06:50 PM
get you high cap mags while u can now boys there is a change blowing in the wind i can see a brand new "brady bill" on the way. so insted of your next gun purchase u better get some more mags and reloading equipment if u want to have something to feed to your pets:evil: !

ssr
April 18, 2007, 06:53 PM
Proposed? The usual load of assorted crap.

Passed? None.

Partisan Ranger
April 18, 2007, 07:08 PM
I think you will see revisions of the background check system. The fact that this sick bas#$#% had documented mental health issues that did not make it into the state or fed check tells me that we are going to be 'blessed' with longer background checks, more invasive. Say goodbye to instant background checks, VA.

mordechaianiliewicz
April 18, 2007, 07:13 PM
I think anything put up will be very carefully mulled over before it is put through as a done deal (law wise). Americans don't have long memories, especially as concerns this sort of thing, and the whole "gun free zone" concept has already been thrown in the face of many folks who wanted to blame "loose laws" for this massacre.

As far as blocking off legal immigrants from acquiring weapons, well. Folks, we need all the suppport we can get. Having a foreigner pick up a rifle turns him quickly into an American in most cases.

Illegal immigrants from Mexico can easily get their hands on a weapon whether here in the US, or in Mexico. Stopping folks who are here as permanent residents from getting guns legally won't stop much of anything.

Now, myself, if you've looked at my posts, you know I'm for limiting immigration, but I say I'm for that based on logic and reason. I'm also for us not changing our PR law because of logic and reason.

eliphalet
April 18, 2007, 07:16 PM
You are such a hypocrite

How about explaining that so I understand what I said your trying to refer to?

I checked your link and agreed that man is/was a hero's hero. I didn't read far enough to see if he had become an American Citizen since coming in 78 but my guess is he did. In which case to bad he wasn't allowed to have had a gun on his person or at least in a locked drawer in his desk.

I am new here so I guess I have stepped on some pretty big toes completely unintentionally on the non-citizen firearm issue. Like my reply to MD I mean none of this personal. I will not go farther into why my thinking is as it is, as that might( or certainly would) get me/us into areas we should not discuss here so I won't. I did include hunting and that exceptions to the rule could apply and am sure in this case it would. As an over all statement I will again stand by my original post and say no to non-citizen firearm ownership. May cost me but I will always stand up for what I believe come hell or high water.

My apoligies to Oleg

answerguy
April 18, 2007, 08:02 PM
Why should a permanent resident who passes the same background checks and has the same clean record as a citizen not have the right to self defense?

How does it work currently? Can someone cross the border from Mexico and purchase a gun right now? How does a gun store check his background if the person just arrived? Or is the clean record you're referring to only count his time in the US?

brufener
April 18, 2007, 08:35 PM
I think we'll see a major overhaul on the backend of the NICS system. Some politicians might even propose a sort of super-database for courts to enter mental health issues in, and maybe even doctors.

I don't see why instant background checks would go away, because a database query is pretty much instantenous. What we will see is more people getting denied for mental health issues, and them having to fight it out with the doctor who said they were mentally ill.

Trifler
April 18, 2007, 08:51 PM
Pretty much all of these shootings where someone goes in and just starts shooting people is a result of a serious mental disorder such as Bi-Polar, a Psychosis, etc. Placing gun control laws on common citizens is pointless. The only type of law change I would possibly support would be one that adds serious mental disorders to the background checks when purchasing a firearm. I've known and I currently know bi-polar people and they are perfectly normal when they're taking their meds, but if they stop taking them for any reason they absolutely become homicidal and suicidal. With most things a person's normal personality can keep control, but not so with a true bi-polar disorder. A blanket law on all citizens however would cause far more harm than help.

chongfa
April 18, 2007, 10:32 PM
To answer your question about my hero, he is a PERMANENT RESIDENT. His nationality is Israel.

Here is the hypocritical part in your believe eliphalet.

If you are going to limit gun control to certain group of people, then where will it stop. Permanent resident can serve in the arm forces and many of them do. Just last year, Bush granted a lot of permanent resident who served in Iraq as our arm forces their citizenships. So you are telling me that permanent resident can serve and die for this country and use gun to defend our beloved country, but they can't buy a gun to defend themself and their love ones? I am positive that a lot of legal aliens are more patriotic than current US citizen.

My home country is Thailand. I am here legally. I pay my taxes, volunteer to teach martial arts to kid after school for free, teaching basic handguns safety for free, etc.... I am currently a research scientist and teach at a college. I love this country, I will die defending her. I would join the arm forces, if I am called to join in order to defend her. I am greatful for everything this country has given to me. I love living in the US. United States is one of the greatest country in the world to live in. Where else in the freeworld, we can enjoy the type of freedom such as Bill of Rights, which were given to us by our forefathers to all mankind that live inside this great nation. I am looking forward to be an US citizen someday, but the process is long and hard.

I am not asking for handouts. I am doing my parts and appreciate this country. All that I ask is that please give me my bill of rights as long as I am here legally, obey the law of the land, pay my taxes, and do my parts.

Eliphalet, you have the right to believe in whatever you want, no matter how hypocritical it might be, it is the beauty of this country. You will not be persecuted for your believe, as long as, it doesn't hurt anybody. Your right is guaranteed by the first amendment. If you are willing to deny my second amendment right, what else are you planing to take away? Just because I am an alien, I can be denied of my basic unalienable human rights as stated by our forefathers? I am just asking you and anyone here to just wait and think about it. If you still feel the same way, good for you because you have every right to be that way.

I hope this explain my feeling and clear things up.

Soybomb
April 18, 2007, 10:37 PM
I haven't seen anyone mention hollow points yet. His picture of all the jhp's sitting there is just begging for someone to take that and run with it and revive the old cop killer hollow point thing.

Let me give you a preview of that thinking from another forum I visit:
He used hollow-points (one of the pictures from the slideshow).

Yikes!


That explains why he was so lethal....

eliphalet
April 18, 2007, 10:59 PM
I hope this explain my feeling and clear things up.

Yes and no,
Go reread my posts I did coincide exceptions and someone that has served and is actively pursuing citizenship would make that exception.
Dr. Librescu was a hero no mistake I honor him in the highest degree, but he also had been here almost 30 years and was happy to be a perminate resident IE a visitor and chose not to be a citizen therefor I will stand by my original statement.

One simple reason is how do we know your a person that should have a gun in America? We can't check your background in most instances and that is impossible and only one of several reasons I have but enough, I am finished, but will continue to stand for what I believe until I am show it is wrong, then I will change but not until.

We limit violent felons from guns is that hypocritical? No, they are a certian group, correct? It's just the law so IMO you argument doesn't hold water. Felons, non citizens gotta draw the line somewhere.

givo08
April 18, 2007, 11:19 PM
^^ comparing felons to non citizens is the equivalent of the roanoke times comparing gun owners to criminal sex offenders. It is not very high road of you to suggest limiting someone's inalienable human right to self defense just because they were not born in this country, regardless of the "exceptions" that you laid out.

chongfa
April 18, 2007, 11:43 PM
I guess in your opinion, our inalienable human rights only applied to US citizens and may be second amendment to some of us who served. So according to you, my hero would NOT have to right to have a firearm to defend himself. So let's wait for another permanent resident throw themself unarm in front of another lunatic gunmen in order to save some of the US citizens that decide not to exercise their inalienable human right that is only limited to US citizen.

I don't know how do I make it any clearer than that. People has the right to form their own opinions, even though it doesn't really make any senses.

I hope that you will feel safer at night by banning guns from a certain group of people because just one of them did something horrible. Afterall isn't it our believes that guns don't cause crime, people cause crime. So how would banning guns from a group of people will make this society safer. If you are going to say "that is not what am I saying", then why would you want to only allow US citizen in this country to buy firearms. What would it accomplish? How would this be any different than any asinine gun law that we have now? How are you better than some of the kneejerk politicians that are looking to place a blame on somebody? Then pass some asinine gun laws that only create an illusion of safety, so they can sleep better at night.

Did anybody else see this as being ridiculous, hyprocritical, and asinine? Beside our legal alien Moderator and a handful of people here?

I am just so piss off right now, so I decide to leave it alone before I lower myself into using profanity. I will just take the high road and be done with it.

eliphalet
April 19, 2007, 12:08 AM
I guess in your opinion, our inalienable human rights only applied to US citizens

To a certain extent and within reason. Yes
I suppose anyone here Legal should be allowed to vote too?

Nice argument we have here.
Your enjoying Americas freedoms to a point of excess IMO but that is your right in this country. We still are a country of laws but it seems many have forgotten that. Its just "Hey it's free we can do anything".
I shoulda stopped before this we;re just two very different people from very different backgrounds and see life from very different perspectives.

Welcome to America bud, please don''t take advantage and respect such a fragile thing this precious freedom we have is, that my forefathers fought and died for for over 200 years now, and how easy it could slip away.

chongfa
April 19, 2007, 12:22 AM
I just can't help it. I just have to reply to you one more time. Because it just really piss me off. What did I ask for? I asked for my BILL OF RIGHTS!!!! How did I enjoy my right to excess? Please explain to me and stop dodging my questions.

Did you even read my posts? When did I ask for a right to vote? In case you forgot what is in our Bill of Rights.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

Please read them.



P.S. Were your ancestors part of the Mayflower or the original thirteen colonies? If not, then I don't think that US forefathers to me would not be very different to you. I considered them my forefathers because I really believe and admired them for what they stood for. They were a group of brilliant people that wrote the US constitution, which stood the test of times for more than 200 years. Not that many constitutions in the world have done that.

eliphalet
April 19, 2007, 12:50 AM
Well being the brick that I am I always kinda figured that the " people " were Citizens and not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry that happened to be on American soil. Please forgive my ignorance.

P.S. Were your ancestors part of the Mayflower

Nope Jamestown 1732 , My Mom claims to have some one on the first three ships but we have nothing to verify that but 1732 is a fact. My fathers side landed in Jamestown Va. to St Louis with a stop in between, I would need to look it up to be exact. His mothers family was in Texas in the mid 1800's how early I have no idea.
We do agree on those men that wrote those words that allow us to be doing what we are at this very moment. It is ashame some of the nearly twisted history about them that is being taught today.
Don't get me wrong it seems to me your frame of mind is great and I did welcome you, and your uppity attidude will not win you friends. We just disagree on a couple of things.

chongfa
April 19, 2007, 01:00 AM
Since I am not an US citizen, which one of my rights do you want to take away? The right to fair trial, free speech, etc. Is it just selective to second amendment? Or may be some other rights that you see fit to take away. I will not even going to argue with you to what the "people" stand for in the bill of rights because that is a matter of interpretations and we definitely will not agree on that. Only people that can clear that up 100% had passed away a long time ago.

What are you trying to accomplish anyway by banning guns from legal aliens? I have answer all of your questions or at least trying to, but you are not answering mine. So you think that by banning guns from legal aliens, you would see gun's crimes drop? If not, then what are you trying to accomplish. So are you saying things like VT massacre would have not happen, if our law ban legal aliens from their second amendment right? If you yes, then please tell me how are you better than the people that are trying to pass more gun laws right now?

eliphalet
April 19, 2007, 01:24 AM
You have a Pvt message sir.

chongfa
April 19, 2007, 01:45 AM
:D

Now I understand your points. I kind of not agree with you, but I definitely see your point of views now. You are definitely not a hippocrite in my book now, thanks for your private message for clarifications.

I also would like to thank you for a healthy debates. ;)

eliphalet
April 19, 2007, 02:25 AM
How does it work currently? Can someone cross the border from Mexico and purchase a gun right now? How does a gun store check his background if the person just arrived? Or is the clean record you're referring to only count his time in the US?

I have no way of knowing how the the check is done beyond the FBI data base and I doubt it is. As long as you have been here a certain time, I think 90 or 180 days and have a green card you can buy a gun.
We just happen to be purchasing a Golden Boy a few months back, over in Oregon, when a clean cut nice looking Mexican fella was turned down as the customer in front of us. We overheard the reason which was he needed to be here another 30 days. The clerk told him to come back then and he could buy. We ask the clerk how long and he told us but it has at the moment slipped my mind.
But what if the purchaser was from Timbuktu, or Tasmania, or Siberia?? How could a reasonable check have been accomplished? Simple it can't.

SWMAN
April 19, 2007, 09:00 AM
No one allowed to attend university classes unless they are packin'.:what:

Marshall
April 19, 2007, 12:20 PM
I think 90 or 180 days and have a green card you can buy a gun.

So it's come here, get a green card, wait a few months and buy a firearm with a NICS check that only checks your few months? That's it? Is that right?

Daps
April 19, 2007, 12:30 PM
Looks like things may be getting a little better here in TN
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_5492294,00.html

Geno
April 20, 2007, 09:03 AM
Permanent Resident Aliens have to go through a thorough background check just to enter the country...hell, citizens we're just "born" here.

Why in God's name would you not want to let residents have firearms? It's one more Constituional supporter?!

If you enjoyed reading about "What new gun control laws do you see being proposed?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!