Back Door


PDA






gbw
March 16, 2011, 08:25 AM
Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen yet any mention of the Huffing Post article on the current administration's plans on guns.

Since they cannot get any gun related legislation through congress they plan to back-door gun control - using all the administrative options and power they have and bypassing congress to the extent legally possible.

The plan involves the ususal suspects.

If you enjoyed reading about "Back Door" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Robert
March 16, 2011, 10:19 AM
Yeah this has been covered.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=580788
and here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=570046
and here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=568517

As you can see all three threads were locked. THR does not do politics. This topic is near and dear to all of us but because of the highly political nature of the subject it gets locked. The conversation dissolves in to Dems do this and the GOP does that, and I don't like Barry... and we simply can not do political talk on THR. It never ends well.

Flynt
March 16, 2011, 10:39 AM
I hope I'm not stepping out of line, but here's an update in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/politics/15guns.html?src=recg

The emphasis of the article is the fact that the NRA is refusing to meet with Obama. I think this is an unfortunate mistake.

Robert
March 16, 2011, 11:02 AM
As long as the discussion can stay focused on the topic of what we as owners can do to influence the matter and not stray in to politics then you are not out of line. These threads walk a very thin line.

BaltimoreBoy
March 16, 2011, 11:44 AM
I don't know Flynt. I think from a tactical standpoint the NRA may be well advised to avoid the discussions.

There aren't votes in congress for new 'gun control' legislation.

Meeting with the administration and the 'gun control' groups might provide cover for an anti 2A initiative.

Withdrawing from the discussions is more difficult than not attending to begin with.

Every month brings us closer to the next presidential election which will make the administration even more cautious.

happygeek
March 16, 2011, 11:50 AM
I for one wish the NRA would just come out and say "look, if there was a group out there dedicated to "common sense" restrictions on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, or any other amendment, would you bother discussing anything with them. We believe in the Constitution, they don't, we don't have anything to talk about".

Owen Sparks
March 16, 2011, 11:55 AM
As you can see all three threads were locked. THR does not do politics.

THR may not be interested in politics but politics may be very interested in your guns.

Government is force and politics is the process of deciding who gets to use that force against whom. Right now it is not in the best interest of the administration for commoners like you to own a weapon and if someone does not want you to own a weapon it is because they might give you a reason to use it.

Hypnogator
March 16, 2011, 07:36 PM
The emphasis of the article is the fact that the NRA is refusing to meet with Obama. I think this is an unfortunate mistake.

So do I. OTOH,

I think from a tactical standpoint the NRA may be well advised to avoid the discussions.

Great adherence to THR principles, BTW. Others, notably the GOA and their ilk would be screaming like wounded panthers that the NRA is selling us out again!

Talk about damned if you do, damned if you dont! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

FROGO207
March 16, 2011, 09:30 PM
I am a gun guy and there will always be some people out there that do not like my views/mistrust me. I also will probably mistrust them for those views as well for I do not warrant that. That is why the USA is a great place to live. We can all be different and still get along mostly. We can as a group TEACH the masses by our actions that we are the better side of the equation. IMHO we are now finally getting some ground back due to the "other view" seeing that reality is a harsh teacher even though they will not dare to admit it.We all need to stand up every day for what we believe in and act as role models for just principles. Firearms have little to do with the problems out there. Automobiles are many times more dangerous than firearms are yet you never see anyone wanting to ban them because of that danger do you? That is because most people understand and choose to accept the dangers associated with that particular type of weapon IMHO. Stick to the true facts and do not let your emotions get involved, that has always trumped the antis because I think they are blinded by emotion. This will always keep the "back door" closed tight.

thorn726
March 16, 2011, 10:07 PM
we don't need more gun policy, we need better screening and treatment of mentally ill persons. I would even go so far to say if we had better care available for mental illness, we wouldn't need to worry about looking into a person's mental health state- the major crazies would be locked up, the rest would be in outpatient of some kind and stable enough to defend themselves. (obviously exceptions galore but im being idealist here)
So far most of what has been proposed is just that, and im OK with that. It would be nice to see background checks gone or at least many of the denial reasons tossed, but it is unlikely as long as the drug war is in effect.
In the meantime, I won't fault the govt for wanting to actually enforce the regulations it has on the books even if i don't agree with them.

Owen Sparks
March 16, 2011, 10:14 PM
Supposedly the focus now is to try and identify potentially unstable gun buyers rather than to go after particular types of firearms. This is problematic because constitutional rights can not be denied until a person has been convicted of a crime or he has been diagnosed mentally unstable by a qualified and impartial psychiatrist.

Any further tightening of these restrictions would require denying Second Amendment rights to entire groups of people like anyone who ever sought counseling for addictions, visited a psychiatrist, was diagnosed with ADD or suffered from depression or panic attacks. Even a mandatory mental screening of firearm applicants not be effective at stopping all the crazies.

Remember Major Hassan the Army psychiatrist who snapped and shot all those people at Fort Hood? How about that crazy astronaut Lisa Nowak who drove 900 miles cross country wearing a diaper so she did not have to stop on her way to kidnap and kill a love rival? These people were probably checked out much more thoroughly than any potential gun owner could be and still slipped through.

Any time human beings are allowed to run around loose there is potential that a few will misbehave. In a free society where people are considered innocent until proven guilty until proven otherwise it is impossible to stop all crime before it happens. That is just the cost of liberty.

AlexanderA
March 17, 2011, 12:05 AM
This talk of "strengthening the background check system" is really code for instituting NICS checks on all buyers at gun shows. This would be done by either requiring all gun show sellers to be FFL's, or requiring/allowing unlicensed sellers to access the NICS. If unlicensed sellers can run background checks on potential buyers, then that means that any individual (pretending to be a gun seller) could run a check on any other individual (after all, the SSN is optional on the Form 4473). The potential for fishing expeditions (against someone that someone else doesn't like) is mind-boggling. It would be like in some totalitarian countries, where neighbors are encouraged to inform on their neighbors. Welcome to the police state.

More realistically, the criteria for the issuance of FFL's would have to be relaxed, if all gun show sellers were required to be FFL's. In other words, there could be no requirement for a "licensed premises" other than the gun show(s). On the other hand, such a licensee without "licensed premises" outside the gun show(s) would probably not be able to take deliveries except at the gun show(s).

wideym
March 17, 2011, 12:20 AM
According to the first part of the article: "the administration is calling together both the gun lobby and gun safety groups to find common ground. But President Obama has no plans to take the lead in proposing further gun control legislation."

Why would the NRA attempt to find "common ground" with gun control (gun ban) groups, when all that would get would be more onerous gun laws affecting lawful gun owners.

Of course the President wouldn't take the lead in any gun legistlation because he knows its a re-election cow pie he and his fellow minded politicians aren't willing to take a bite out of, they still remember what happened after the Assualt Weapons Ban in 94'.

AlexanderA
March 17, 2011, 02:49 PM
I don't think the NRA and the other gun-rights groups should participate in this. They have nothing to gain and a lot to lose. There's no indication that the anti-gun groups are willing to put anything on the table. Their attitude is, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."

Patriotme
March 18, 2011, 09:59 AM
What does the NRA have to gain by participation? They will be shown as being unwilling to compromise (as they should be) yet some will believe that they are unreasonable for not giving in on hi cap mags, "Assault Weapons" or some other firearm. They will be asked to give in on some guns and gear while getting absolutely nothing in return. Actually I'm wrong. It's us that will be getting nothing in return. Somehow they will however be portrayed as the bad guys.
Now imagine that this meeting is aired on television and most of the media only show short segments of the hearing. I believe that it would look like two entirely different meetings depending on your news source.
I remember watching a meeting of Obama, the Dems and the Republicans in the days leading up to the Healthcare Bill being signed. This was supposed to be a search for bi partisan compromise and they were supposed to find common ground. Unfortunately the Dems got twice the debate time as the Republicans. Obama is the President so he got the final word on every point made in this debate. At one point a Republican was actually going to read from the Bill to correct a blatant error that the President said. The Republican got cut off as they "Didn't have the time to get into minute details."
I'm trying very hard not to get this thread locked but I would like to make my point. Please remove my post before locking the thread if it comes to that.
Now imagine a similiar hearing with the President, the anti gun groups, a few Dems and a few Republicans and the NRA. After hearing about how 97% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the US, showing machineguns as civilian "Assault Weapons" and talking about how anyone can buy a gun at a gunshow the President now gives the NRA 2 minutes to speak about his statements. Now the Brady Campaign gets to talk about whatever the latest report is that they've created. Follow this by Schumer discussing guns, Biden discussing guns, Boxer discussing guns and Kerry discussing guns. Now the NRA gets another 2 minutes to make their point. Throughout the entire process Obama is the moderator and speaks for 5-10 minutes between each speaker.
I'm sorry.
This is a lose-lose proposition for the NRA and whoever would represent them. This is a lose-lose proposition for the American gun owner.
They made the right decision by sitting this out.

merlinfire
March 18, 2011, 10:23 AM
I for one wish the NRA would just come out and say "look, if there was a group out there dedicated to "common sense" restrictions on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, or any other amendment, would you bother discussing anything with them. We believe in the Constitution, they don't, we don't have anything to talk about".

Well said!

TexasRifleman
March 18, 2011, 10:29 AM
A few posts have disappeared from this thread.

As mentioned above, THR does not do politics.

Gun Control is by definition political so what we mean is that discussing political parties, placing blame on one party or the other etc is off topic.

Discussions around gun control proposals and how to respond are on topic.

At the moment there are no new gun control proposals other than the usual stuff from McCarthy, which won't get out of committee.

Please leave political parties out of the conversation.

TexasRifleman
March 18, 2011, 10:30 AM
Have you all read the NRA's response to the President's Op Ed in the Arizona paper?

Well worth reading.

http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaletter314.pdf

I think the NRA refusing to engage the administration is the right move since the argument isn't about guns at all, it's about mental health care and other failures in the criminal justice system.

texas bulldog
March 18, 2011, 02:48 PM
Thanks for posting the NRA letter, TexasRifleman. That was a good read.

thorn726
March 18, 2011, 03:30 PM
if there was a group out there dedicated to "common sense" restrictions on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, or any other amendment, would you bother discussing anything with them.

so we haven't noticed this happening constantly? In the wars on terror and drugs we have made these kinds of deals already. If you are willing to deny someone some of their rights, they will probably come after some of yours. Pretty sure we're all bothering to discuss stuff with people who have let several of our civil rights go out the window in the name of fighting terror

That said im still having a hard time seeing anything beyond lip service to antis in the current scenario.

If you enjoyed reading about "Back Door" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!